You came into "my" life approximately six months ago, and within this period, life as I've known it continues to transform with the understanding that all that is- is That.

Like the prisoners whom you corresponded with in your book, Living Nonduality, I too had been [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2017/04/14/evaporating-effortlessly
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 12:08:59 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2017/04/14/evaporating-effortlesslyFrom a letter received recently…

Dear Robert,

You came into "my" life approximately six months ago, and within this period, life as I've known it continues to transform with the understanding that all that is- is That.

Like the prisoners whom you corresponded with in your book, Living Nonduality, I too had been a prisoner to many "negative" qualities not excluding guilt, shame, and regret. Conditioning, primarily inculcated through a religious upbringing, is what had deemed these qualities a sort of "humility", up to now. And so they were dragged along as "me".

Through present moment awareness, the identification seems to be evaporating effortlessly. Looking to the past for "my" sense of identity is becoming a foreign and unnatural way of being. This is taking into consideration that even "unnatural" is also That.

This peace is whole and includes every event that took place, and is taking place, as well as all resentful thoughts and events that will arise in the now. Thanks to your teachings, there is no longer a denial or suppression but rather an understanding that it is all the Absolute.

"It" has never been a matter of time. It is and has always been what "it" needed to be.

Much love,
Rosa

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2017/04/14/evaporating-effortlessly#comments0From V. Ganesan at The Mountain PathKarina Library PressKarina Library Press
– V. Ganesan
former head of Ramana ashram at Arunachala,
editor of Ramana journal, The Mountain Path
[...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2017/03/19/from-v-ganesan-at-the-mountain-path
Sun, 19 Mar 2017 12:22:08 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2017/03/19/from-v-ganesan-at-the-mountain-path" Heartily recommend that serious spiritual aspirants read this compact compendium…bless every reader who is fortunate enough to read this small book."
– V. Ganesan
former head of Ramana ashram at Arunachala,
editor of Ramana journal, The Mountain Path

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2017/03/19/from-v-ganesan-at-the-mountain-path#comments1News of the DayRobert WolfeRobert WolfeHopefully, this overnight reversal of directions ought to serve as a reminder of several [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2016/11/25/news-of-the-day
Fri, 25 Nov 2016 19:59:38 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2016/11/25/news-of-the-dayHopefully, this overnight reversal of directions ought to serve as a reminder of several spiritual principles.

“All things change”—and the change itself continues to change. Not anything can ever be taken for granted. A psychologically unstable idealist now will have his finger on the red button. A “great nation” may now experience a drastic descent, as has every haughty nation throughout history. Americans may come to know the internal insecurities and brutal ravishment that every European country has known. Your very life (let alone way of life) may be in jeopardy in ways you’ve never imagined. Change can not only be a surprise but it can be surprisingly swift. This is a fact of life which an aware person never forgets.

And, there are our expectations: circumstances should be this way, they should not be that way. We expect that a more experienced and pragmatic candidate should win, and not lose. We expect that our elected proxies will acknowledge the changes which are obvious in our collective present, rather than to attempt to turn the clock back to distant time. We expect our fellow countrymen to be reasonable, sociable, peaceable, unselfish. And we don’t expect that our expectations are subject to change. Any expectation we have that conditions should develop this way, and not that, is another spiritual lesson for us.

The unfolding of reality occurs on a moment-to-moment basis, not merely on that of a four-year cycle. Moments from now, you may not even be alive—in fact, possibly none of us will. “Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof,” Jesus reportedly said. Live each day as if it were the last, is the meaning. The future is no more certain than is tomorrow. In fact, tomorrow is an idea—in a world and universe which are themselves fundamentally an idea. Recognizing the impermanence of reality is a final spiritual lesson reminded to us in the present uncertain situation. — RW

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2016/11/25/news-of-the-day#comments2Freeing your thoughtsRobert WolfeRobert WolfeIf you concern yourself with whether you are thought-free or not thought-free, would it be possible to be “thought free”, in that circumstance?

As the Dzochen Rinpoche Tulku Orgyen has commented:

“Checking, ‘Is there a thought [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2016/06/06/freeing-your-thoughts
Mon, 06 Jun 2016 10:40:02 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2016/06/06/freeing-your-thoughtsIf you concern yourself with whether you are thought-free or not thought-free, would it be possible to be “thought free”, in that circumstance?

As the Dzochen Rinpoche Tulku Orgyen has commented:

“Checking, ‘Is there a thought now; or (am I) free of thought?’— isn’t that just another thought?”These teachers speak of a “natural” mind. During your day, all sorts of thoughts come and go, spontaneously arising and dissolving, like surf washing up on a beach. Isn’t this what is natural to all of us?

Tulku Rinpoche has said, “ it is not beneficial to continuously pursue a special, thought-free mental state. Rather, simply allow yourself to be in naturalness, free of any fabrication”; that is, conceiving of, and attempting to engineer, some special state of mind or condition for thought. “Thought-free means free of conceptual thinking,” he states.

Tulku’s eldest son, Chokyi Nyima also speaks of the dualistic distinction between “thought” as compared to “thought-free”.

“What is to be practiced has nothing to do with thoughts and conceptual mind…The main practice is to simply rest vividly awake in this nondual awareness. Relax loosely, and remain naturally. Totally relax and do not check or question; remain totally free from accepting or rejecting—that is the conducive situation for meeting the natural face of awareness. Apart from this, you don’t need anything else to meditate upon.

“Whenever something is denied, something is affirmed at the same time. Whenever something is rejected, another thing is automatically accepted. This dualism is the very nature of conceptual judgment.

“When not involved in any kind of conceptual judging, that itself is innate suchness, thought-free wakefulness, and genuine ordinary mind.”

He has further stated:

“When leaving this fresh ordinary mind as it is, without correcting or modifying it, without altering it in any way, without accepting and rejecting, there is no fixating on anything.“In the guidance manuals for meditation, it is often phrased like this: do not alter your present fresh wakefulness. Do not rearrange even as much as a hair tip. Just leave it exactly as it is. This is very profound, and there is a lot to understand here…

In the present moment, do not correct,Do not modify,Do not accept or reject.Don’t try to rearrange your present wakefulness.Instead, leave it as it naturally isWithout any attempt to alter it in any way.That is called sustaining your natural face.”

Another son of Tulku Rinpoche, Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche, speaks in detail about the innate naturalness of the mind free of such dualistic concepts as thought versus no thought:“Like many of the people I now meet on teaching tours, I thought that natural mind had to be something else, something different from, or better than, what I was already experiencing. Like most people, I brought so much judgment to my experience. I believed that thoughts of anger, fear, and so on (that came and went throughout the day) were bad or counterproductive—or at the very least inconsistent with natural peace! The teachings of the Buddha—and the lesson inherent in this exercise in non-meditation—is that if we allow ourselves to relax and take a mental step back, we can begin to recognize that all these different thoughts are simply coming and going within the context of an unlimited mind, which, like space, remains fundamentally unperturbed by whatever occurs within it.​“All you have to do is rest your mind in its natural openness. No special focus, no special effort, is required. And if for some reason you cannot rest your mind, you can simply observe whatever thoughts, feelings, or sensations come up (hang out for a couple of seconds and then dissolve) and acknowledge, ‘Oh, that’s what’s going on in my mind right now.’ Wherever you are, whatever you do, it’s essential to acknowledge your experience as something ordinary, the natural expression of your true mind. If you don’t try to stop whatever is going on in your mind, but merely observe it, eventually you’ll begin to feel a tremendous sense of relaxation, a vast sense of openness within your mind—which is in fact your natural mind, the natural unperturbed background against which various thoughts come and go.”

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2016/06/06/freeing-your-thoughts#comments2The first and last stepRobert WolfeRobert WolfeAnything which we view as not that actuality is not true. All—each and everything—which we say exists is imbued with that singular [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2016/06/06/the-first-and-last-step
Mon, 06 Jun 2016 10:35:49 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2016/06/06/the-first-and-last-step​Enlightenment is such an uncomplicated matter! What need be clearly realized is simply this: there is but one ever-present actuality, and there is not anything from which it can be apart.

Anything which we view as not that actuality is not true. All—each and everything—which we say exists is imbued with that singular actuality. Everything, in other words, shares in—or as—this one Truth.

So, it is said—and understood by the enlightened—that “all that is, is That”. In this understanding, there cannot then be conflict: there are no two (or more) things to be in opposition, competition or contention.

This has a couple of profound effects, from the start, for the inquisitive human mind: where and when can this ultimate reality be discovered to be present?

Every where. All that is to be sensed is That. The sensor too is That. “Nowhere is it not,” Vedic scriptures tell us.

When can I come to discover ultimate reality? Time is meaningless here. You are already marinating in ultimate reality. And it is already present in anything which you sense.

​In the simple recognition that everything conceivable is that One ever-present actuality or Truth, every other aspect of enlightenment will be revealed as evident. This is the first and last “step”.

I stumbled across your interview on Buddha at the Gas Pump. This led me to purchase your book entitled “One Essence”. I read the poem as well as your commentaries and was floored by one clear realization: ‘There are no distinctions.’

I stumbled across your interview on Buddha at the Gas Pump. This led me to purchase your book entitled “One Essence”. I read the poem as well as your commentaries and was floored by one clear realization: ‘There are no distinctions.’

The essence of what non duality is talking about is not difficult. The whole of what it is pointing to can be wrapped up in the phrase “not two”. The very essence of the teachings is that there is no separation:All distinctions are the essence, or absolute.

I was struck a few moments ago at how the petting of my dog, and viewing of the body and mind, are just that essence of all that is, and is not, expressing itself in this very moment. This implication is both ordinary and astonishing. Ordinary because of the simplicity of the phrase not two; and astonishing because everything experienced is not separate.

I have been seeking non dual wisdom for over 4 years, and am blown away that what I have been searching for, all along, is the essence of what I am. The seeker is truly the sought. There are no distinctions between seeker, seeking and sought. They are the same!

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2016/03/23/the-seeker-is-truly-the-sought#comments0Self-Realization A to ZRobert WolfeRobert Wolfehttp://livingnonduality.org/blog/2016/02/25/self-realization-a-to-z
Thu, 25 Feb 2016 10:53:54 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2016/02/25/self-realization-a-to-z​All spiritual, and religious, traditions have had in common a contemplation of a fundamental actuality (or factor, or condition), beyond which there is not anything else. The words, and names, used to indicate or define this ultimate actuality demonstrate, by their number and range, the impracticality of characterizing it—hence one of its titles, is the Ineffable.

Being the fundamental factor, or first principle, it can be said to be the pre-existing condition in which (or out of which) all existent things arise. While all things derive their existence as a corollary of it, it—uniquely—is self-existent.

All spiritual, and religious, traditions have had in common a contemplation of a fundamental actuality (or factor, or condition), beyond which there is not anything else. The words, and names, used to indicate or define this ultimate actuality demonstrate, by their number and range, the impracticality of characterizing it—hence one of its titles, is the Ineffable.

Being the fundamental factor, or first principle, it can be said to be the pre-existing condition in which (or out of which) all existent things arise. While all things derive their existence as a corollary of it, it—uniquely—is self-existent.

Yet, without manifestations of it, it in and of itself represents no thing, or nothing. Thus it is also described as Emptiness, or the Void. Put another way, without beings to attest that it exists, it would not be known as existent.

Because it is known as self-existent, it is generally recognized to be without beginning or ending. What has been called the Infinite, or the Totality, supercedes any limitations in either space or time; both space and time conceivably have a beginning and ending. The Totality, on the other hand, is said to be unbounded, illimitable, immeasurable in space, unlimited in time.

That which has no beginning or ending has no borders, restraints, or restrictions. All forms have a limitation in time or space. That which is perfectly illimitable would be formless.

The important point, which spiritual teachings emphasize, is that a ubiquitous actuality, that is entirely unrestrained in space or time, would be irresistibly present—everywhere, at all times.

This would mean that, having no barrier to its presence, at any point ever, in any time or any place, it would not only have surrounded every thing (or form) which ever existed, it would (at any and every moment) penetrate, permeate and saturate every entity which has been, is, or will be.

In other words, it is understood to be the essence of all of actuality—in fact, the essential be-ing of all that is.

It is generally considered to be the ground, or source, of being. All things (or forms) arise within it; exist within it (or we could say, as it); and eventually return to this immutable condition.

The spiritual teachers emphasize that all forms (whether material or immaterial) are impermanent, and transient. But that eternal and infinite presence in which all existent things arise, and subside, is not itself impermanent.

The impermanent forms are called relative, in that they are dependent upon changing conditions, within time and space. That which all else is dependent upon, and which is not itself subject to change, they call the Absolute (the word actually means “not relative;” it also means “without limitation.” All of the myriad names or titles, for the ultimate actuality, are summed up in that word, which spiritual texts have utilized universally).

But, the important point, which is often overlooked, is that the relative and the Absolute are not two different, or separate actualities. There is only One actuality, though we might refer to it, in its manifested appearance, as any particular (or general) relative form; or, alternately, we might consider its essential nature as the omnipresent being-ness in which each thing has Absolute expression. The two aspects cannot in any way be considered to be apart from each other; the relative is within the Absolute, at the same time that the Absolute is within the relative. This, then, explains the paradoxes elaborated by the teachings, and their teachers. Complete clarity regarding the paradoxical nature of the ultimate reality is known as enlightenment, realization, or awakening.

Another name for enlightenment is nondual awareness, or Absolute awareness. It is also described as the transcendence of the dualistic perspective.

The rishis say that our underlying condition, or true nature, is the formless presence, or being-ness, that is the essential element in (or of) every form. When you go to sleep at night, there are several times, (scientists confirm), when you go into such a deep sleep that “pure awareness” is all that is present. There is some sort of vital presence, because if someone were to pinch you, or yell “Fire!,” you’d wake up.

But in this condition of deep sleep, there is no sense of being some particular “person,” no concepts, no conception of “others”—in fact, no perception of a world, or even of a universe. There is simply empty awareness.

When we wake out of sleep, there are bodily needs and conscious attention is directed toward attending to the needs of the physical organism. As a consequence, we subjectively operate in the material surroundings, from the standpoint of relative considerations, and conceptual relationships.

In other words, although in deep sleep we do not conceive of any individuated selves, in the waking state we think in terms of “my self” and “other selves.” It is this “relative” perspective which is referred to as duality.

In the state of deep sleep, where there is no awareness of even one “thing,” that empty condition is what is indicative of nonduality. The rishis say that it is out of this formless, nondual awareness that the separative, dualistic thoughts (which we utilize in the waking state) are formed, and consciously perceived.

The nature of the thinking process, is that it is divisive. We think in the form of words, which are themselves separative, and our thinking process entails comparison and selection: choices upon which to act.

This process has practical value, in the material world, in terms of deciding (and pursuing) our bodily needs. However, our divisive, or dualistic, thought patterns lead us into conflict: me versus you; us/them; friend/enemy; and so on.

It particularly leads to the conclusion that “I”, and some “other” thing, or reality, are separate from each other: principally, that I and God (or Ultimate Reality) are two different things. The idea then becomes to seek some sort of “union” with God, or the Absolute.

The rishis say that the formless awareness, which is at your core, is a manifestation of the Absolute. It is the ground of being for your every thought, conception, or conclusion—and this even includes your thoughts, or feelings, of separativeness.

Since you and the Absolute cannot in any way be apart, or separate, when this truth is clearly, and thoroughly, realized, it is known as enlightenment. It is also called Self-realization. (Self is another appellation for the Absolute, the point being that it is your “self” that is recognized to be the limitless actuality.)

A hatchery-raised year-old salmon was deposited, miles away, in a stream via which he, and others, migrated eventually to the ocean. A year later, at spawning time, he returned up the stream, transited a highway culvert, entered the hatchery’s storm sewer, and wriggled up a four-inch drainpipe—negotiating 90 degree elbows—where he knocked off a wire cap and leaped a screen around the drain—to return to his home tank.

There is an account of a (one-celled) amoeba which surrounded and engulfed a smaller amoeba; but before the big one could digest the little one, the little one broke out of captivity. The big amoeba had to reverse its course of movement in order to pursue the escapee, but caught it and swallowed it again. But once again, the prospective meal broke out, and swiftly (about three minutes, for an amoeba) moved away—then the big amoeba declined pursuit.

When young, a flatfish swims upright, with an eye on each side of its head. But mature, the fish constantly rests on the ocean floor on one of its sides. The eye on the fish’s recumbent side (a report states) “begins a curious creeping migration up and around the ridge of the head (or—in some species—through it), until in a few weeks it arrives on the upper side—not only regaining, but actually improving on, its juvenile binocular conjunction.”

Garden-variety slugs have been kept in a laboratory where temperature, humidity and light were held constant—yet they knew when the period around August 1st had arrived, because that’s when each year they laid their eggs.

According to one book, “a leading geneticist has calculated that if we were to translate the coded messages of a single human cell into English, they would fill a thousand-volume library.”

In a laboratory, a lizard was decapitated, while another lizard was cut in half; the top half of the second lizard was grafted onto the headless body of the first lizard, forming a lizard with six legs—which soon learned to coordinate all limbs and to run like a six-legged insect.

Intelligence in the natural world is also reflected in how species interact with each other, such as the flowers which attract bees. Just weeks before the female bee of the Andrena genus matures, the Ophyra orchid flower mimics her entire appearance—easily attracting the active male Andrena bees.

The mimosa (of the pea family) sensitively protects its foliage from browsing cattle. Within a tenth of a second of being touched, the fern-like leaf stalk curls up and withdraws (which is faster than a snail can similarly respond).

As elusive in its own way is the butterfly, which folds its wings in precise alignment with the sun, so that no shadow is present. And the stripe-eyed butterfly fish has a stripe which camouflages its real eyes, while on each side, near its tail, is a simulated eye. Coupled with its practice of slowly swimming backward, it is actually watching any predator that might hope to sneak up on it.

A white-and-black Malaysian spider displays himself on a leaf, mimicking a bird dropping—complete with an ammonia-like scent. While birds pass him by, flies flock to him. And there are moths which “not only dodge the bats but emit counter-sonar ultrasonic signals to confuse them when they get close,” effectively jamming the bats’ sonar (a measured eighty-five percent of the time).

Discovering a nectar source, a bee communicates the location to her colleagues by doing a figure-eight dance inside of the hive, one “step” of which indicates direction, another step indicating distance. Part of her choreographed message is audible, in the key of B (yes, “bee”), by revving her wings 250 times per second. If the destination is quite near, the dance is round. Italian bees have added a sickle shape to indicate middle distance (30’-120’), and their round dance always means less than 30 feet. To an Austrian bee, the round dance can mean up to 500 feet. To Indian bees, the figure eight means 10’-12’. Bees also similarly report on suggested new locations for a hive, stressing its suitability by the number of times they repeat the figure.

It has been estimated, as we consider a further aspect of intelligence, that every atom in the human body is replaced possibly once every five years; yet this is normally done in such a (natural) way that the body’s basic matrix or pattern remains undisturbed—including such patterns as one’s memory.

The extent to which molecular matter retains potential information is not entirely known. North of the equator, standing water whirls down a tub drain counterclockwise, but clockwise south of the equator. But if a tub faucet is angled so that water filling a tub has even the slightest rotary circulation (and the water is then undisturbed) as long as four days afterward the standing water will whirl down the drain in that same pre-established direction.

A planarian is a flat, half-inch worm which can be severed into a half dozen pieces, yet each piece will re-grow its original form—including a central nervous system. Given this dispersion of information in its bodily cells, here was the experiment: a bunch of these worms were trained to a simple but distinctive stimulus–response, until they had apparently remembered it; they were then cut up into hundreds of small segments, and fed to untrained worms. Yet the untrained worms reacted to the stimulus as if they remembered (re-membered?) the conditioned response.

In a different experiment, eggs of species of night-flying, migratory birds were individually hatched in isolated boxes, and the chicks were raised to maturity without even seeing the sky or another bird. At migration time, each was put into a planetarium where it was exposed to the star positions of the current night sky. Each species aligned its body and attempted to fly away in the correct compass direction for their traditional destination. When the sky map was rearranged to look as it would stand above, say, Siberia, Germany or America, the birds made the appropriate correction in their flight direction, in order still to arrive at that same destination.

The human body contains possibly a hundred billion neurons (nerve cells), such as those in the brain, which emit electrochemical pulses: “each of them is a sophisticated living computer capable of evaluating not only thousands of competing signals per second, but—in the same interval—making decisions in response to them all….each cell can send and receive messages from hundreds of other cells at once.

“…animal experiments at the University of California have revealed nerve cells that can actually count, doing so by holding back the discharge of their electrochemical signals until an exact number of clicks has been sounded.”

The sponge is a sea animal which happens to remain in one place, somewhat like a plant. It may begin its life as a single, free-moving cell, or as an agglomeration of countless such cells. If you were to take two sponges of different species and colors (as has been done) and press each through a fine mesh—breaking up its perhaps millions of cells—and then mix the two masses together in a container, these cells will in a few days regroup themselves again into two separate, but whole, sponges of their species and color.

Reportedly, brain tissue grown in a test tube will spontaneously generate its usual bioelectric current. Brain cells, from an unborn mouse, that have been isolated will, when reintroduced, reassemble themselves so as to be indistinguishable from the original brain.

The nature of intelligence is not always benign. Millions of representatives of millions earthly species, as Guy Murchie has said, are contesting their particular expression of intelligence “no holds barred, no trick untried, without any mention of rules, bounds, ages, sexes, morals or time limits whatever.” Some species will, given the chance, feed on other species until, first, the prey and then, second, the predator will become extinct. Most species, though, do not take more than is needed to sustain life for the moment. Near the turn of the century, moose appeared on an island in Lake Superior, followed about forty years later by wolves who were able to cross the ice. The moose were like fish in a barrel, for the wolves; but to this day there is a steadily-maintained balance of approximately thirty moose per wolf.

One species (man) has apparently brought another species (the European bison) back from extinction, by carefully crossbreeding existent wild cattle that have similar, dormant traits.

The (color-banded) male parent of a nest of newly-hatched sparrows acquired a new mate, when the chicks’ mother had suddenly died; and she adopted the motherly role. Within a week, the male sparrow too was killed, and the step-mother located another male to replace the second natural parent. The chicks were raised to maturity by this surrogate pair. Nonetheless, birds have been known to leave their late-hatched brood behind to starve, when the appointed time arrives to migrate south. And the marsupial cat has only six nipples, but may give birth to four times as many sucklings that would like to be fed. Nature has imparted a ravenous appetite to the tiny, mouse-like shrew. Isolated without food for several hours, one has been observed to avoid starvation so insistently that he began with his tail and ate progressively into his body until death finally subdued his instinct.

On the other (even?) hand of nature, there is fusion. A normal, functioning amoeba (it would have been able to propagate in the usual way) was created in the laboratory by splicing together—each from three donor amoebas—the membrane, the cytoplasm and the nucleus.

Cultured in a medium (at NYU Medical School), cells of a mouse were hybridized with those of a human, and for six months “colonies of man-mouse cells grew successfully through more than one hundred generations” of cell proliferation. ​It was not until 1665 that cells (in cork) were first distinguished, and 1839 that cells were understood to be the basic unit of life; in 1859, it was learned that cells reproduce by division. Now we estimate that there are 50 trillion cells in the human body, and if all of the DNA in one human were connected together like thread, there could be enough to stretch to the moon and back possibly 100,000 times!

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2015/06/27/letter-5-free-will#comments0Adyashanti on the Biggest BarrierRobert WolfeRobert WolfeAt age 19, Adyashanti (Steve Gray) began a Zen practice, sitting in meditation sometimes three or four hours a day. During the sixth year, he had a deep insight that the seeker (himself) could not be apart from the sought (transcendent Being). As he described what occurred to him:

“I am what I’ve been seeking…[But] [...]]]>

http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2014/11/02/adyashanti-on-the-biggest-barrier
Sun, 02 Nov 2014 10:42:28 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2014/11/02/adyashanti-on-the-biggest-barrierAt age 19, Adyashanti (Steve Gray) began a Zen practice, sitting in meditation sometimes three or four hours a day. During the sixth year, he had a deep insight that the seeker (himself) could not be apart from the sought (transcendent Being). As he described what occurred to him:

“I am what I’ve been seeking…[But] what is this that I am?”

Another six years later, that question was put fully to rest: he had penetrated to the emptiness of all things. Why had it taken twelve years, he pondered, to discover the actuality which he had never been apart from. Would he recommend a zazen meditation practice to others, as the most direct means to enlightened realization?

In an interview, with Stephen Bodian, he said:

“When I looked around at the Buddhist tradition, I realized that the success rate was terrible. People were in it for enlightenment, but very few were actually getting enlightened. ‘If this were a business,’ I thought, ‘we’d be bankrupt.’”

He began to look at his own transformation:

“Enlightenment is awakening from the dream of being a separate ‘me’, to being the universal reality. It’s not an experience or a perception that occurs to a separate person as the result of spiritual practice or cultivated awareness. It doesn’t come and go: and you don’t need to do anything to maintain it. It’s not about being centered, or blissful, or peaceful or any other experience…. The separate person is seen through, and you realize that only the supreme, universal reality exists; and that you are that.”

He emphasizes:

“This knowing has never changed or faded in any way…. It’s not that I, as a separate self, merged with everything. It was just a pure seeing that everything is one, and that I am that.”

Adya began to question the value of a spiritual practice that is contrived to unite an “individual” with an eventual experience. So he now dismantles various myths concerning enlightenment.

“For one thing, we need to let go of all the ideas and beliefs we’ve accumulated over the years about what enlightenment is supposed to look like…Some people who come to see me are already quite awake, but the mind causes confusion because the awakeness doesn’t fit their picture of it…In the spiritual culture that has evolved here in the West, we tend to confuse enlightenment with mystical experiences…mystical experiences are happening to the dream character you take to be ‘me’—and this ‘me’ is the one you wake up from…The realization is completely nondual….We do not need to go looking for ‘altered states of consciousness’: humanity is already in an altered state of consciousness. It’s called separation.”

Further, Adya says:

“The idea that enlightenment means sitting around with a beatific smile on our faces is just an illusion. At a human level, enlightenment means that you are no longer divided within yourself, and that you no longer experience a division between ‘yourself’ and ‘others’…When personal motivation no longer drives us, then what’s left is our true nature; which naturally expresses itself on the human dimension as love or compassion. Not a compassion that we cultivate or practice because we’re supposed to, but a compassion that arises spontaneously from our undivided state.”

And, he speaks of what he calls the biggest barrier to realizing this undivided state:

“I think it’s unfortunate that a person can spend hour after hour, day after day, year after year, dedicating his life to enlightenment, and yet the very notion that anybody attains enlightenment is a taboo. We’re all going after this; but God forbid somebody says they’ve realized it. We don’t believe them, we’re cynical, we have doubt; we go immediately into a semi- (or overt) attack mode. To me, it highlights the fact that people are chasing an awakening they don’t believe could happen to them. That’s a barrier, and the biggest one…And when people have breakthroughs and talk about them in public, awakening loses its mystique. Everyone else can see that it’s not just special people who have deep awakenings, it’s their neighbor or their best friend.”

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2014/11/02/adyashanti-on-the-biggest-barrier#comments1Non-conceptual SeeingRobert WolfeRobert WolfeQUESTION:I totally get that all is one and that there can be no separation. However, there is still the sense of being an individual here. What can be done beyond the intellectual acceptance of the nondual perspective that can take the seeing into the realms of the experiential rather than just a mental seeing?

[...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2014/07/24/non-conceptual-seeing
Thu, 24 Jul 2014 06:00:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2014/07/24/non-conceptual-seeingQUESTION:I totally get that all is one and that there can be no separation. However, there is still the sense of being an individual here. What can be done beyond the intellectual acceptance of the nondual perspective that can take the seeing into the realms of the experiential rather than just a mental seeing?

There are teachers who would say that nothing can be done, since there is no separation in the first place so therefore there is nobody who can do anything. The seeing either happens or it doesn't and there is nothing that can be done to bring it about. If this is really the case, then interest in nonduality would be pointless and the apparent 'I' might as well just go all-out into acquiring as much pleasure and avoiding as much pain as possible and just accept the concomitant suffering that this entails, while vaguely hoping that the slim chance that enlightenment may spontaneously come about just might somehow occur.

I just don't know if there is any more point in investigating all this if I can already see, mentally, that there is no separation and that all is one but if the sense of the dissolution of the 'I' still hasn't happened and there is nothing that can be done to bring it about. Do I just give up investigating altogether and get on with a regular life or is there some other way of looking into this that can bear real fruit?

Nonconceptual Seeing

An "intellectual seeing" as you put it is a mtter of understanding that I and the Absolute are one.

The "experiential seeing" that you speak of, is the disappearance of the subtle duality in which two (supposedly different) concepts are "united."

You need to first recognize that the 'I' is a (separative) concept. Then you need to understand that the 'I', which is unreal, seeks to complete itself by addition of (unification with) the Absolute: in this context, we have a concept-ion of the Absolute as some thing which we could possibly be apart from, in the first place (thus, the "uniting").

When you comprehend what the enlightened masters have said—you ARE what you seek; or the observer IS the observed—the I "disappears," and the I's (false) conception of the "other" dissolves; with what remains, there are no ideas about needing, or seeking, anything.

It's alright to say, "there is an individual here"; from the relative, dualistic standpoint, that woudl appear to be so.

But if, as you say, "there can be no separation," then in truth there can be no such reality as "individuals."

It is the INDIVIDUAL who is seeking unity; the Absolute condition, itself, IS one of no separation: not two, not even one (nothing to conceive, or conceive being apart from).

At present, you are insisting, at least by way of concept, that there is a separate YOU (this is the "seeker"). When it's thoroughly taken seriously that there can in actuality be no such thing as a separate you, what "is left" is the Absolute condition. And it is impossible to unite with this, because it's already always-ever-present. If you weren't conceiving otherwise, you'd know that you can't come into union with that which no one has ever been apart from.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2014/07/24/non-conceptual-seeing#comments1Why Does Illusion Not End?Robert WolfeRobert WolfeQUESTION: I understand that the very nature of the Absolute must mean that everything is That, including me. It could not possibly be otherwise, otherwise the Absolute would be something less than absolute. So the world which I am experiencing is not a world of separate forms, but a world which just appears as separate forms. And yet even after [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2014/07/22/why-does-illusion-not-end
Tue, 22 Jul 2014 10:21:44 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2014/07/22/why-does-illusion-not-endQUESTION: I understand that the very nature of the Absolute must mean that everything is That, including me. It could not possibly be otherwise, otherwise the Absolute would be something less than absolute. So the world which I am experiencing is not a world of separate forms, but a world which just appears as separate forms. And yet even after I contemplate this, and understand that it must be the case, there is the continued perception of separation. There is no shift in perspective that gives a first-hand experience of this being the truth/reality. My moment-by-moment experience remains one of separation.

If the illusion is seen as an illusion, then why does it not end immediately?

Nosheen, UK

"…Including Me"

Your query is well-stated. It is perhaps the most prominent of the quanderies posed. Every explanation, or response (a roshi pounds his staff on the floor) is directed to it. All of my books speak directly to it.

"Everything is that, including me." If it's truly "understood," it's recognized that anything "you" say, do, or think is That doing what is done. As the Vedas say, "You are not the doer."

So, to whom is any "continued sense of separation" occuring? To whom would a "shift in perspective"—or lack of it—be perceived? By whom is an "illusion" seen—or conceived?

The concluding sentence in the main paragraph begins "My." But it's been asserted that the "me" is That. To have it both ways—That, as a premise; me, as a perspective—is duality.

Is it "the world which I am experiencing," or is the world That, and the experiencing (by the experiencer) That?

"The very nature of the Absolute must be that EVERYTHING is That." Absolutely so. If you're being absolutely consistent, and not identifying as me one moment and That in the next, there will be not two but one: then you have eradicated what "appears as separate forms."

So, if the "me" is seen through (as a separate form, leaving the Absolute which is without form) to whom will there be a "shift in perspective"? When there's a recognition that both "shifts" and "no shifts" (or any other conceivable dualistic distinctions) are included in the everything which is That, this is what is known as Realization.

Duality is the "illusion." That there is a me who would be united with That is duality. Nonduality is the realization "there are no two things" in actual truth, despite the appearance of "separate forms." Those appearances, too, are That!

​And, yes, to add to the frustration are these many insensitive (if not unkind or cruel) and self-centered (if not selfish and inconsiderate) persons we are obliged to interact with. How can we help them to comprehend that there is a more life-enhancing way to live? The obvious answer is to “start at home”; set an example. I liked your line from Dr.Hora: when it comes to the much-vaunted virtue of compassion, are we “speaking from our filing cabinet”, or are we talking about “hands-on” application? Are we “visualizing” love of “fellow man”, as you again evoked Hora; if so, any result will be a fantasy too.

If it is a reformation that I’m after, am I more likely to make progress in reshaping others or to shape-up myself ?

Generally speaking, changes in an individual can be from forces within or from forces without. That is,one might be inspired or self-motivated to make a change; or one might be coerced or outwardly constrained to make a change. In the former instance, it is usually because of a conviction that this is the proper or correct thing to do; in the latter case, it is usually because it is the presently expedient or temporarily acceptable thing to do. In other words, we believe in the rightfulness of our self-motivated changes; but this is not often the case with changes that are imposed upon us from outside forces.

So societal change is not only dependent upon your change, but upon inward change as opposed to outward pressure. Only the former is real change, because it will be sustained even when it appears not to be expedient.

A truly changed society will be a society of changed individuals; truly changed, inwardly changed.

When we realize this, we end our external speculation as to how the society might function if others were to change. We focus all of our attention on our individual internal change so that what we personally bring to society is of a radical departure.

Therefore, society can (realistically) be expected to change only to the extent that I can be expected to change. Put another way, change in society begins with me. Conversely, where there has been no radical change in me, there has been no radical change in society.

Therefore, I consider that transmitting the dharma is the most politically/socially radical activity one can be involved in.

How are you to convey this truth to others, if it is not irrefutably established in your own consciousness?

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2014/04/11/to-an-inmate-seeking-change#comments0The Meaning of LoveRobert WolfeRobert WolfeQuestion: I viewed the 46 minute interview on YouTube, and found your words and presence deeply resonant with my understandings. I did come away with one question or topic that I did not hear you speak on: the presence of Love Abiding. Is there a place in your [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2014/04/10/the-meaning-of-love
Thu, 10 Apr 2014 09:58:18 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2014/04/10/the-meaning-of-loveQuestion: I viewed the 46 minute interview on YouTube, and found your words and presence deeply resonant with my understandings. I did come away with one question or topic that I did not hear you speak on: the presence of Love Abiding. Is there a place in your writings that I can read your thoughts on love as permeating Nondual Presence? Or do you speak of Nonduality without any framing of that presence in terms of love? - Rev. Roy R.

Robert:

Because it is so much at the very root of spirituality, an entire book could be written on how love is perceived by an enlightened being. As a pastor, you are asking how love is expressed in the context of nonduality.

By the way you framed the question, I think we can agree that we are not considering love in its common conception as mere affection and attachment toward another person or object; benevolent concern for other animate beings; romantic or sexual attraction; or worship and devotion toward an idol or supernatural image. All of these are relationships which reflect a dualistic perception. As Ramana Maharshi has said of this, "When you talk of 'love' there is duality, is there not: the person who loves and the entity…which is loved."

In the transcendence of the dualistic perception is the profound love which the nondual sages refer to. The Sanskrit term ananda is often translated into English as "bliss," but the bliss is the consequence of experiencing unconditional love: the word unconditional is defined as "absolute." This is love for all that exists: that means the "good," the "bad," and whatever is in between. It means a love that inclusively makes no distinction between what is manifested from moment to moment, and the omnipresent Totality which manifests it.

Ramana uses various words to indicate the ever-present actuality, such as God or Self, that ti which all things owe their be-ing. So he says, " Expansion of love and affection would be a [proper] term for a true devotee of God," or the sublime Presence. But he emphasizes that thjis infinite Presence "is not 'somewhere else', but is inside [as well as outside] of each of us; so, in loving all, one loves only the Self…The individual is not separate from God."

He is telling us that this love and affection expands to embrace the good, the bad and the indifferent—in ourselves, equally as in others. This is the "unconditional" aspect, which, relates to our being nonjudgmental and non-interfering, and thus eliminates conflict, inward and outward.

This "love" is not an alternative to "hate"; it's the transcendence of divisive polarities: such as that some people, or developments, are "good" or "bad"; or that they should be this way, and should not be that way. This is what Ramana means by "the absence of love or hatred."

The infinite Being is above hatred, and above love as well, in the discriminatory sense. But that within each of us which has the capacity for the expression of unconditional love, or compassion, is a manifestation of the Presence which loves itself through the medium of being all things which can be the subject of love.

Thus Ramana says: "Love is not different from the Self…[in this sense] God is love…Love itself is the actual form of God…Call it pure bliss, God, or what you will."

"It is only through jnana [Self-realization] that the bliss that derives from true love will arise…Die yourself [into the eternal Self] and lose yourself, becoming one with love…To be the [nondual] Self that you really are, is the only means to realize the bliss that is ever yours."

So, in summary: God is love (as well as all else), and this God manifests as all that is.

In the recently published Abiding in Nondual Awareness ( companion book to Living Nonduality), there are several monographs which relate to your concern—which you state as, "I step in and out of duality": pages 34-36; 73-74; 80-81; 151-152 — for starters.

Also, my book One Essence deals with this matter of one's tendency to accept/reject particular conditions which appear in our consciousness. It's also the subject of page 23-24 in Always—Only—One.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2013/12/27/in-and-out-of-nonduality#comments0Is "Deep Sleep" different from the after death state?Robert WolfeRobert WolfeIs the "deep sleep" state any different from the after-death state? or from the pre-birth state? The bio-chemical chain reaction that is the body-mind/organism, it comes and goes of course.

Thanks for your query.

I have written a section on the Self-Realized view of death on [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2013/12/27/is-deep-sleep-different-from-the-after-death-state
Fri, 27 Dec 2013 12:06:14 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2013/12/27/is-deep-sleep-different-from-the-after-death-stateIs the "deep sleep" state any different from the after-death state? or from the pre-birth state? The bio-chemical chain reaction that is the body-mind/organism, it comes and goes of course.

Thanks for your query.

I have written a section on the Self-Realized view of death on page 204-208 of Living Nonduality, and in the subsequent companion volume Abiding in Nondual Awareness on page 49-52 and 194-195.

If you'll peruse those, we can then consider any specific questions.

-RW

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2013/12/27/is-deep-sleep-different-from-the-after-death-state#comments0What Goes Up...Robert WolfeRobert WolfeQuestion: I have read your book (Living nonduality) and it deeply resonates with me. For some time now, I have researching Zen, Theravada and Advaita, both in theory and practice.

I found your way of interpreting nonduality very close to my experience and I like the way you explain it. Somehow, I still have one [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2013/09/27/what-goes-up
Fri, 27 Sep 2013 11:15:20 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2013/09/27/what-goes-upQuestion: I have read your book (Living nonduality) and it deeply resonates with me. For some time now, I have researching Zen, Theravada and Advaita, both in theory and practice.

I found your way of interpreting nonduality very close to my experience and I like the way you explain it. Somehow, I still have one question: can you have more than one liberation?

My personal experiences is full of imbalance, equanimity then fear, peace then fear, nervousness, and so on. Is there a such a thing as permanent state of peace without ups and downs?

Robert: One way to put it is that the "permanent state of peace without ups and downs" occurs when one is completely at peace with any ups or downs.

The idea of ups and downs is a dualistic premise. Nonduality means the transcendence of the supposed dualistic polarizations, such as good/bad, better/worse, ups/downs. Where there is simply one condition (nondual), any and every condition is that condition: this is the "equanimity" that you spoke of.

When everything which presents (to you) is recognized to be that one condition, the tendency to characterize or categorize what us present as "up" or "down," or "in between" dissipates. You no longer are invested in whether you could call it "this state" or "that state"—even if you desired to. When that equanimity is present, that is the "permanent state of peace": at peace with what could be labeled ups and downs if you were to lapse into duality and do so.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2013/09/27/what-goes-up#comments1The Limiting ConditionRobert WolfeRobert WolfeQuestion: Krishnamurti says in one place that if the mind gets UNCONDITIONED then one can see the Reality. Am I misinterpreting it?

Robert: When "conditioning" is spoken of, it basically means the inculcation of the training we've received since our birth and into our lifetime. When a lab rat imprints the route of a [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2013/09/27/the-limiting-condition
Fri, 27 Sep 2013 10:55:04 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2013/09/27/the-limiting-conditionQuestion: Krishnamurti says in one place that if the mind gets UNCONDITIONED then one can see the Reality. Am I misinterpreting it?

Robert: When "conditioning" is spoken of, it basically means the inculcation of the training we've received since our birth and into our lifetime. When a lab rat imprints the route of a maze on its consciousness, we say the creature is conditioned.

Our primal conditioning is the I-thought: it occurs to us, early on, that "I am someone," I am a "me," an "individual"; and this conclusion is immediately assented to and reinforced by our guardians and society.

With the internalized establishing of the I-thought, all else, externally, is not-I, not-"me." "You," for example are "not me." So, our perception of a pluralistic--"dualistic"--world is based on a conclusion of "self" identification which conditions (and is conditioned by) our daily experience and activity. Our conditioned mind, Krishnamurti says, is at the root of our divisive and selfish behavior.

And the Reality he is speaking of is the nondual Reality (or ultimate truth). So, when he says that the conditioning of the mind must end if one is to realize the truth, it's essentially a way of saying that it is your ingrained dualistic perspective which is to be deconstructed if you are to be capable of perceiving nondual Reality.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2013/09/27/the-limiting-condition#comments0Not KnowingRobert WolfeRobert WolfeThe reason why this can be said is because Self-realization is merely a profound insight into the total and complete absence of limitation. In other words, it is entirely outside the bounds of both [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2013/09/20/not-knowing
Fri, 20 Sep 2013 12:00:30 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2013/09/20/not-knowingThe reason why this can be said is because Self-realization is merely a profound insight into the total and complete absence of limitation. In other words, it is entirely outside the bounds of both experience and knowledge.

In fact, to the Self-realized, the word which comes closest (to the condition described above) is nothingness.

In actuality, it is not a matter of "knowing Oneness" or "experiencing sublime consciousness." It is an irrepressible realization that the ultimate condition is of no-thing; nothing.

In other words, in this absolute awareness there is not any thing about which we suppose we will be certain, as a conceiver knows a concept.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2013/08/30/audio-interview-robert-talking-with-two-visitors-tim-and-prashant#comments1Elementary Cloudwatching publishedRobert WolfeRobert WolfeHere is the book's webpage where you [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2013/07/06/elementary-cloudwatching-published
Sat, 06 Jul 2013 10:01:16 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2013/07/06/elementary-cloudwatching-publishedRobert's first writings have been published as a collection for the first time. These are reflective, nature-inspired essays that were composed during and shortly after his time in the redwood forests.

Here is the book's webpage where you can find links to read 3 entries from the book, and listen to 4 recordings of Robert reading from Elementary Cloudwatching.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2013/07/06/elementary-cloudwatching-published#comments0It is not concerned with what occursRobert WolfeRobert WolfeQuestion: What is it you cannot speak, write, or think?

Robert: What is it that is aware of the condition you describe? That is "witnessing" it? This is the awareness out of which (or in which) speaking, writing, thinking occur. Just attend to that witnessing awareness and what is present in it. It is not [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2013/05/22/it-is-not-concerned-with-what-occurs
Wed, 22 May 2013 09:18:40 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2013/05/22/it-is-not-concerned-with-what-occursQuestion: What is it you cannot speak, write, or think?

Robert: What is it that is aware of the condition you describe? That is "witnessing" it? This is the awareness out of which (or in which) speaking, writing, thinking occur. Just attend to that witnessing awareness and what is present in it. It is not concerned with what occurs (activity or non-activity) within it. Whether there is or is not speaking, etc. is the secondary thing, not your primary being-ness.

Question: How would you counter the assertion that the brain produces the experience of awareness, consciousness?

Robert: If we postulate that the brain is the producer of conscious awareness, what produces the brain? Are not brains [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2013/05/11/brain-mind-consciousness-awareness
Sat, 11 May 2013 05:00:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2013/05/11/brain-mind-consciousness-awareness

Question: How would you counter the assertion that the brain produces the experience of awareness, consciousness?

Robert: If we postulate that the brain is the producer of conscious awareness, what produces the brain? Are not brains and aware consciousness products of the same source?

The brain by itself cannot fathom the source. But conscious awareness can ask, "Where did I originate?" And conscious awareness can inquire, "Where did the brain originate?" So, while we can assert that without a brain there is not conscious awareness of either a brain or such a thing as conscious awareness, what of organisms which appear to be consciously aware but which have no brain?

How to define awareness/consciousness and its relationship to the brain may never see resolution. But the question of what is conscious-awareness itself is an ancient one. It leads to a further question: "Where does it originate?" And sometimes to a perhaps more pertinent question, "What is its purpose?"

I feel these latter questions are the more provocative. Nondual sages (such as Ramana) suggest responses to these questions, and I find these proposals insightful and conceivable.

A paradoxical summary might be stated:

The experience of conscious awareness cannot be differentiated from conscious awareness.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2013/05/11/brain-mind-consciousness-awareness#comments0Soul SearchingRobert WolfeRobert WolfeQuestion: What is your perspective on the belief that we all have a Soul or Higher Self guiding us somehow? Isn't this just more dualistic thinking? If All there is is THAT, or Infinite Being, than wouldn't we have the idea of having some sort of individuated Soul still be a form of dualism?

Robert: You have said [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2013/04/12/soul-searching
Fri, 12 Apr 2013 04:00:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2013/04/12/soul-searchingQuestion: What is your perspective on the belief that we all have a Soul or Higher Self guiding us somehow? Isn't this just more dualistic thinking? If All there is is THAT, or Infinite Being, than wouldn't we have the idea of having some sort of individuated Soul still be a form of dualism?

Robert: You have said it in your email as well as I could.

If there is an individual soul, from where (or what) does it arise?

If it has been brought into being, it does not qualify as being eternal, or infinite. In such case it cannot claim immortality—which is the very characteristic that defines a soul.

The God which religious seekers purport to want to know, or experience first-hand, would have to be the source, or originator, of souls. So, the important question, for them, is not where or what are souls, but where or what is God?

That is the question that nonduality directly addresses itself to.

In that examination, nonduality asks, Is there a person, a self, an individual? Even if there is, would an all-pervading God not be immanent in that person? Are we perhaps immersed in God? In our verybeing immortal? Where does there need to be a ghostly phantom known as soul to fit in "between" God and self?

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2013/04/11/robert-talks-about-past-and-future-books#comments0A Primal MysteryRobert WolfeRobert WolfeQuestion: What does the seeing that there are no others mean in relation to the apparent circumstantial evidence that there are points of view, thoughts, perceptions and feelings which are not experienced 'here' in this body-mind?

Robert: You need not deny that you experience "others," nor that they appear to be [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2013/04/07/a-primal-mystery
Sun, 07 Apr 2013 11:47:24 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2013/04/07/a-primal-mysteryQuestion: What does the seeing that there are no others mean in relation to the apparent circumstantial evidence that there are points of view, thoughts, perceptions and feelings which are not experienced 'here' in this body-mind?

Robert: You need not deny that you experience "others," nor that they appear to be experiencing you (via "points of view, thoughts, perceptions and feelings"). From the standpoint of anyone's conditioned reality, all this comes with the territory.

For many (if not most) people, the observation of these material forms—"this body-mind" and "others"—is merely taken for granted, and prompts no inquiry. For some people, whatever the reason, curiosity arises concerning what is being observed: why is there any thing which exists at all? Is there something which these existent things have in common? What set all this reality in motion, or infused it with life? In other words, could there be some message here, implicated in the medium?

Over the ages, there have been a number of people who have maintained that there is an answer to such questions. They usually claim that the answer they've discovered is not obvious, but rather counter-intuitive. They also often say that this discovery radically changes he manner in which forms and appearances are experienced.

So for you, "the seeing that there are no others" may run contrary to what you (and even other people) conclude is "circumstantial evidence" that "body-minds" exist independently separate from each other.

These animate forms, or even inanimate, do not disappear for those people who purport to be attuned to an alternate reality. In other words, they do not deny the seeming separativeness; nor even the circumstantial evidence supporting it. But they say that such is no longer their perception.

For these people, to put it briefly, "there are no others" because (they have discovered) there is no substantive "self." And all experiences which beings share is circumstantial evidence of their interconnectedness, or fundamental sameness. There are signs that all things, or forms, have an origin in common, representing an unbroken, cohesive continuity; and that this coordinating force, or power, existed long before there were body-minds to ponder it. In fact, our very thoughts, perceptions, etc. are dependent upon it.

So for some seers, though they view the same relative objects that you do, they are reminded of the deep mystery: is there a more primal knowledge of existence than out subjective mind can apprehend? And how would one know it?

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2013/04/07/a-primal-mystery#comments1Nonduality in a Science ContextRobert WolfeRobert WolfeScience of the Sages:

"I love science and was truly inspired by Robert's use of what we have learned from science to help us see more clearly our reality. Putting non-duality in this context clears many misperceptions. I appreciate Robert's contribution of making himself [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2013/03/18/nonduality-in-a-science-context
Mon, 18 Mar 2013 11:25:54 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2013/03/18/nonduality-in-a-science-contextScience of the Sages:

"I love science and was truly inspired by Robert's use of what we have learned from science to help us see more clearly our reality. Putting non-duality in this context clears many misperceptions. I appreciate Robert's contribution of making himself knowledgeable enough about these topics to make me more aware."

Links to Science of the Sages: Scientists Encountering Nonduality from Quantum Physics, to Cosmology, to Consciousness

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2013/02/18/state-of-grace#comments3From CheyenneRobert WolfeRobert WolfeAs is this great white mountain,We are but conduitsBetween heaven and earthEternally in communionWith Itself. [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2013/01/29/from-cheyenne
Tue, 29 Jan 2013 10:01:54 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2013/01/29/from-cheyenneAs is this great white mountain,We are but conduitsBetween heaven and earthEternally in communionWith Itself.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2013/01/29/from-cheyenne#comments0Filmmaker Rafe Stoneman on Robert WolfeadminadminCup of Tea

Rafe Stoneman is interviewed by Jerry Katz at nonduality.com. Discussion about recommending the book Living Nonduality and first meeting Robert.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2013/01/28/filmmaker-rafe-stoneman-on-robert-wolfe#comments2Compassion as Empty PhenomenonRobert WolfeRobert Wolfecultivation of compassion and loving-kindness are spoken of as a relative truth, according to Ponlop Rinpoche who says that these relative practices can be instrumental in leading one to realizing ultimate [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/12/31/compassion-as-empty-phenomenon
Mon, 31 Dec 2012 00:02:31 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/12/31/compassion-as-empty-phenomenoncultivation of compassion and loving-kindness are spoken of as a relative truth, according to Ponlop Rinpoche who says that these relative practices can be instrumental in leading one to realizing ultimate truth.

An element of this compassion is the desire to bring realization of the true nature of phenomena to others, to alleviate suffering by dedicating one’s time, energy and interests to this endeavor.

“We see that beings will continue to engage in the confused cause-and-effect actions…unless the nature of impermanence is recognized, together with the nature of emptiness…(those suffering) do not understand the true nature of the cause of their suffering.”

“To see the suffering of ‘others’,” however, is conceptual. “At some point, our practice develops into non-conceptual experience…”

If “compassion” and “loving-kindness” are on the levels of relative (conceptual) truth, what is the ultimate truth? “When it comes to the absolute or ultimate truth,” we are considering “complete realization of emptiness, selflessness or egolessness,” through which emerges genuine (non-objectified) compassion, not “tainted by the self-centered view.”

“Ego-centered compassion…is not arising from a heart that is willing to fully sacrifice its own desires to end the suffering” of others.

What obstacle seems to arise, precluding the realization of egolessness? Because of habituated ego-clinging, “complexities have developed in our mind; layer after layer of dualistic perceptions…” which result in a “labeling process.”

“On the absolute level, it is the ego, our clinging to [a belief in the existence of] a self, that is the focus…” As a means to excoriate the belief in our existence as an independent entity, “we must go to the other extreme: ‘between the two poles of existence and nonexistence,’ we come to a discovery.”

The relative truth is concerned with existence, the manifestation of the appearances that we experience: “the sensory perceptions and their objects [such as ‘others’], and conceptual mind and its objects [such as ‘suffering’ and ‘compassion’].” When “(Buddhist) logic, reasoning and contemplation” is applied to these, “nothing solid and real exists” in phenomena.

These appearances are given their relative relationships through the artifice of labels: “When you look at labels, it is very easy to see their relative nature” (such as “suffering”/“compassion”). The labeling process is the function of the mind (itself a label).

Break anything down, that we label, and we come to subatomic particles that have no materiality, in fact are mere “probabilities”: “nothing solid and real is found….regarding the existence of external phenomena, nothing existing is found at the atomic level”; what science calls an energy field, Buddhism calls emptiness (shunyata), complete groundlessness.

With “the complete refutation of any notion of ‘existence’ [as a solid reality, such as ‘others’ or ‘self’]…we transcend any kind of clinging onto existence whatsoever [no self: no existence]—there is a complete sense of negation, in the absolute truth.”

Yet, we can “go beyond that negation, to find the real nature of phenomena, which transcends both ‘existence’ and ‘nonexistence’…which is not simply descriptive of genuine reality, but is the reality itself, the basic state” that “goes beyond”—where “there is nothing to hold onto…Buddha said that ‘emptiness’ is also nonexistent….

“It is first of all necessary to embrace the stage of complete negation….Afterwards, we may go beyond that stage…that notion [nonexistence] should also be abandoned.”

This “brings us back into the middle….both existence and nonexistence are extreme positions; the absolute truth is beyond…goes beyond nothingness…”

This brings us back to the relative, which cannot be left out of the equation with the absolute: “if you separate these two truths…you lose the actual reality….

“Chandrakirti asserts that the two truths are inseparable, they are one nature right from the beginning. When you see relative truth, its nature is absolute truth.” Anything relative does not exist “outside of the absolute nature….the inseparability of appearance/emptiness…should be how we understand the two truths. “When we see a form, hear a sound, or experience a thought (as being real), to that same degree we can also experience them as the nature of emptiness.”

When “we cling onto the subject/object relationship…‘your’ pain, your happiness and joy…(the) experience of a thought…(or) holding a particular view…we can see beyond it.”

When we “apply the absolute view…we can experience the absolute truth and…experience the relative truth in a more transcendent way.”

~~~~~~~~

If I understand the sense of Ponlop’s presentation (condensed from a 10-page transcription of a talk, published in Bodhi, Vol. 6, No. 4), the dualistic perception and its labeling process, creating relative conditions, is a product of the egoic mind. No reality exists in phenomena, including the separate person (and its consequent intentions). Any apparent relative conditions cannot be separated from emptiness. The subject/object relationship is realized as false when not tainted by the subject/object perspective, such as “your suffering”/”my compassion.” To apply the absolute view is to experience the relative truth in a transcendent way.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/12/31/compassion-as-empty-phenomenon#comments1Revelatory RevolutionRobert WolfeRobert Wolfebody. And how we attend to this is what has been called “right livelihood”—in a [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/12/22/revelatory-revolution
Sat, 22 Dec 2012 00:31:33 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/12/22/revelatory-revolutionbody. And how we attend to this is what has been called “right livelihood”—in a relative world where circumstances are not ideal.

A suggested first consideration: to the extent that one is in confusion, all that one does is an acting-out of that confusion; to the extent that one has clarity, all that one does is an activity of that clarity. So the first item on the agenda needs to be this matter of arriving at clarity concerning the ultimate nature of our reality. When you know who, or what, is the true Doer of what’s being done, this is the “right” foundation for subsequent “livelihood.”

Then this consideration: ask not what you can get; ask what you can give. The lives of the enlightened masters tell us that when your wants and your needs are not two, you are likely to lead a non-competitive life, involving a freedom out of which emerges a fearless creativity; this becomes, without intention, a life of “service.” And, like water reaching its own level, such service tends to be supported without even the need to ask.

You write, “There is no me.” Then allow the Doer to do what needs to be done, while living in that clarity.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/12/22/revelatory-revolution#comments1Unamazing GraceRobert WolfeRobert Wolfeis Grace!" And so Ramana has said, "Grace is the Self. It is not something to be acquired." He also [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/12/09/unamazing-grace
Sun, 09 Dec 2012 13:11:42 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/12/09/unamazing-graceis Grace!" And so Ramana has said, "Grace is the Self. It is not something to be acquired." He also said that sincerity is Grace, and realization is Grace. In other words, Grace can be said to be the Self looking for itself or at itself, so far as the scriptures are concerned.

This leads again to the (so-called) "question of free will." As Ramana has also said, you could only possibly have free will "as long as the body lasts"; in other words, free will is nothing more than an idea, or concept, which occurs in the mortal mind. Of course, "you" are the supposed agent of the activities of free will--an extension of the same self-centered notion.

"Is there such a thing as free will, or not?" To paraphrase the answer Ramana gave to a related question, free will is as real as "you" are.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/12/09/unamazing-grace#comments2Drowning with No LifelineRobert WolfeRobert Wolfe
It is worthwhile to note that no two experiences of Self-realization are exactly alike. It is also important to note (particularly if extraordinary sensations were a part of it) that the pivotal moment is now simply a memory in the past. Some people make the mistake of attempting (or hoping for) a reliving [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/10/02/drowning-with-no-lifeline
Tue, 02 Oct 2012 14:02:21 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/10/02/drowning-with-no-lifeline
It is worthwhile to note that no two experiences of Self-realization are exactly alike. It is also important to note (particularly if extraordinary sensations were a part of it) that the pivotal moment is now simply a memory in the past. Some people make the mistake of attempting (or hoping for) a reliving of what is indubitably a unique occurrence. What is important, instead, is the moment-by-moment living of Self-realization, once the wonder of discovery has passed.

As you say, in your fourteenth and concluding paragraph, “I understand that all this is meaningless discussion”: for you, realization is clearly present, and all the rest is merely preamble. In your words, this perspective is no longer a matter of “intellectual understanding.” Essentially, the things which you describe would be recognizable by anyone who’s undergone this transition. Reduced to a paragraph:

“(Before), every activity or thought process was separate. Now it is felt that there is no discontinuation. Continuity in the awareness is not lost, even if thoughts or activities happen. Individuality has gone. The differentiation between ‘you’ and ‘other’ simply vanishes. Thoughts do come, you still interact with others, but you know that you are interacting only with yourself! There are feelings like anger, joy, happiness, worries, etc., but they don’t prolong. There is only the sense of being, existence. ‘Efforts’ are not possible for any further so-called seeking. The very basic and simple meaning of Nondual renders every concept or definition meaningless.”

You also state, “The feeling of Being takes over.” You asked if there will be a “deepening.” I prefer the word “unfolding.” The shift in perspective, as you noticed, is instantaneous, an authorless insight beyond the time frame of “becoming.” But once the realization is present, the unfolding (or “deepening”) of its being is what “takes over” for the rest of one’s life. You might say that drowning in Being is the deepening. Anything shallower can be said to be “meaningless discussion.”

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/08/20/living-nonduality-the-film#comments0The IS in "What Is"Robert WolfeRobert Wolfe"This should be different than it is."

Such is a thought which we hold regularly, and generally without even noticing it.

By the time this thought, or idea, has occurred to us, that which we are critiquing is already an evident [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/08/16/the-is-in-what-is
Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:20:05 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/08/16/the-is-in-what-is"This should be different than it is."

Such is a thought which we hold regularly, and generally without even noticing it.

By the time this thought, or idea, has occurred to us, that which we are critiquing is already an evident fact.

You cannot change the fact which has been observed, you can only wish it were otherwise or attempt to offer some form of resistance to it.

The development which “should be different than it is” may relate to me; may relate to others; may relate to the world; or to some other aspect of life in general.

The greater the number of notions one has about the way things should be, could be or would be, the greater the anguish and disappointment with the way things actually are—with me, you, the world or the surprises of life.

You, in existence in this moment, and whatever else is actually present—in this moment of existence, as a noticeable reality—are inseparable.

Whether you react or do not react to the present fact, or circumstance, does not change or reverse the fact itself. What is, is not appeased by your supposition of what ought to be instead.

You and the factual circumstances of your life (good, bad or indifferent) are an indivisible reality: neither resisting or clinging to any situation makes any existential difference either way.

To simply be present with whatever is present is for the momentary reality and “me” to merge into one harmonious movement of indivisible wholeness.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/08/16/the-is-in-what-is#comments1Communicating NondualityRobert WolfeRobert Wolfeawake” and the “sleeping” is a delicate matter (I have [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/08/08/communicating-nonduality
Wed, 08 Aug 2012 09:54:30 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/08/08/communicating-nondualityawake” and the “sleeping” is a delicate matter (I have found).

Krishnamurti once made the point that it is fruitless to speak from the view of the Absolute to one whose only frame of reference is the relative. Yet, this doesn’t suggest that one doesn’t speak.

What one does, I’d say, is to attempt to begin communication on a common ground. For Krishnamurti, this common ground is that anyone is able to see that the human condition is a disaster. For Buddha, the common ground was that all have noticed that “life is a condition of sufferance”. For some other teachers, the common ground is that it is obvious that our ego-centeredness gets us into deep trouble. From even tacit agreement on any of these points, it is possible for a fruitful dialogue to follow.

Another reliable common ground is that virtually everyone harbors at least some speculation concerning that mystery which is called the Omnipresent. It is almost a definition of the “unawakened” to say that this noumenon will be countenanced in a dualistic light. So, this is a very immediate juncture for a dialogue to begin, and to proceed the most directly.

When we perceive the “identity” of the Omnipresent—all that is, both existent and non-existent—we must recognize our “own” identity: that we have none apart from That. This is a fly-swatter for the ego, without the ego even seeing it coming. Therefore, it seems to me, the most direct penetration is to elucidate that the I must be merely a form of appearance of the all-pervasive, formless Omnipresent.

But of course, as Jesus pointed out, not every seed that is planted will be seen to sprout before our very eyes. That is no reason not to be responsive, though. This is regarded in the sutras as, “action without concern for outcome.” What else are you going to do with your allotted time? Thus, you can write: “This manifestation is THAT Light, and has been so pervaded by it that there is no longer interest in anything but THAT Light.” This attitude will recognize Light wherever it shines.

*

A further comment:

You write, “It seems to me that when this Wholeness speaks…it is saying: I am all-inclusive and cannot be limited in any manner.” Well said.

Assuming that the all-inclusive is the ultimate source of any and every thought, why separate out “negative” thoughts?

Better to ask (or contemplate), perhaps: That (by whatever name) being the ultimate source of the bodily organism; its brain; so-called mind; and thus all ensuing thoughts, how is it that divisive thoughts are of no more ultimate significance, or consequence, than unitive thoughts? Given that It cannot be limited in any manner, what is it that wholeness “cannot be”?

Of what importance, finally, are any thoughts? In deep sleep, none even arise. And yet wholeness is present, unaffected.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/08/08/communicating-nonduality#comments1Once AgainRobert WolfeRobert WolfeQuestion: It makes sense that Q (or Ned) is all things, but no thing to be pointed at. How does the point of perception shift from the "me" to that of the Absolute? And if the Absolute is everyWHERE, there is no reference point to be "at". Am I confused? [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/07/02/once-again
Mon, 02 Jul 2012 09:46:22 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/07/02/once-againQuestion: It makes sense that Q (or Ned) is all things, but no thing to be pointed at. How does the point of perception shift from the "me" to that of the Absolute? And if the Absolute is everyWHERE, there is no reference point to be "at". Am I confused?

R: To whatever extent there is an Absolute, there is no "me".

The me is a form: it has a beginning and an ending; it is impermanent. The Absolute, the sages concur, is without beginning or ending—infinite. Being infinite, it is without form—formless. And being infinite and eternal, it is not impermanent.

All the forms must exist within—begin and end within—the infinite, the formless. But by virtue of being free of boundaries, borders, restraints or restrictions, the ever-present, everywhere-present Absolute must—in the very same moment—be within each and every form. So, the Absolute must—by its definition—surround every form (such as "you"), while simultaneously permeating, penetrating and saturating every form (such as "you").

This being the case, your temporary “identity” is this organism which answers to your name; your permanent, everlasting identity is that of the timeless Absolute. In other words, your “true nature” is real, as Ramana puts it; your identity as the organism is unreal.

So, the answer to your query is that the “me” ceases to be a reality where the thorough-going perception of the Absolute actuality is present.

Thus, it is not a matter of uniting the “me” and the Absolute: there is only the Absolute, in terms of ultimate reality, and not anything outside of, or apart from, or beside it. No me, get it?

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/07/02/once-again#comments2You're Getting WarmerRobert WolfeRobert WolfeQuestion: Robert said something along the lines that the Absolute cannot experience itself, since it IS the Absolute and, through the senses, can only experience aspects of itself. I’m trying to phrase it in a way that I can understand it better. Is it like an ice cube not knowing what cold is, because it IS cold and therefore needs [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/06/29/youre-getting-warmer
Fri, 29 Jun 2012 15:25:38 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/06/29/youre-getting-warmerQuestion: Robert said something along the lines that the Absolute cannot experience itself, since it IS the Absolute and, through the senses, can only experience aspects of itself. I’m trying to phrase it in a way that I can understand it better. Is it like an ice cube not knowing what cold is, because it IS cold and therefore needs something else to refer to? So, the search for experiencing the Absolute further deepens the illusion of separation, since I’m trying to experience my Self.

Reply: I like your analogy. Imagine an ice cube seeking to have a future encountering experience with Coldness.

You say, “So, the search for experiencing the Absolute just further deepens the illusion of separation. I’m trying to experience my Self!” That’s it, exactly.

If the enlightened masters are telling the truth—that the Absolute saturates all these apparent forms—then you and It could not possibly be in more substantial contact than you are (and always have been) already. To seek being a male, to use another analogy, would be sheer folly, for you were born into that condition.

So, any expectation that somehow you will encounter the Absolute, at a time or place in the future, only leads your attention away from your ever-present, inescapable, essential being.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/06/29/youre-getting-warmer#comments2Different StrokesRobert WolfeRobert WolfeQuestion: Are you in any disagreement with what Tony Parsons says about nonduality? [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/06/20/different-strokes
Wed, 20 Jun 2012 15:13:29 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/06/20/different-strokesQuestion: Are you in any disagreement with what Tony Parsons says about nonduality?

Not at all.

Just as no two persons can stand in exactly the same spot to view a sunset, so not two exponents of nonduality report their view from precisely the same perspective.

And generally the aspect of that view which initially made the most impression on each is typically the aspect which that particular teacher will tend to emphasize. In consequence, no two teachers give the same report, down to the last detail, though they’ve shared the same discovery.

In addition, different teachers adhere to different styles, probably as a development of what they’ve experimentally found effective in terms of transmitting this (counterintuitive) dharma.

The effect is that some teachers are more easily understood, by a particular listener, than are others. Or put another way, some listeners come more prepared to hear this teacher as contrasted to that teacher. The same, of course, holds true for the written material.

And, finally, there are some teachers who are most easily understood by those who have themselves already perceived the clear view. These teachers serve the purpose of removing doubt that the listener is indeed seeing through to the singular universal Truth.

As is obvious, of course, not everyone who professes to expound on nonduality has a thoroughly complete grasp of the matter. In such cases, dualistic viewpoints will inevitably surface in their pronouncements.

There are many effective teachers of nonduality speaking and writing these days, and Tony Parsons is the voice which some listeners will respond to best. On the other hand, someone may find him to seem unapproachable in their comprehension, while, say, Adyashanti may connect their dots.

The same message can be, repeatedly, delivered through different messengers. Focus on the comprehension of the message.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/06/20/different-strokes#comments1A Poem from DennisRobert WolfeRobert WolfeSitting by the window.Birds singing.Realization of SELF.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/06/17/a-poem-from-dennis#comments0Poonja's DilemmaRobert WolfeRobert WolfeWhen finally in the presence of Ramana, he described the experience of an altered state of consciousness which frequently occurred to him, and he asked Ramana if [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/06/13/poonjas-dilemma
Wed, 13 Jun 2012 12:06:42 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/06/13/poonjas-dilemmaWhen finally in the presence of Ramana, he described the experience of an altered state of consciousness which frequently occurred to him, and he asked Ramana if this was enlightened consciousness, or Self-realization.

(Poonja subsequently did come to Self-realization under Ramana's guidance, and as a teacher in his own right--called "Papaji"--was the mentor of the American teacher of nonduality, Gangaji.)

One of the most common refrains that an Advaita teacher hears is, "I once had a taste of the experience of Oneness, but it evaporated and I haven't been able to bring it back."

Whatever it is that you expect to experience, if it is not present right now, then that is not the "realized" condition that you're looking for.

Every spiritual and religious tradition, since the written word, has described the Absolute actuality (or Self) as omnipresent: "Nowhere is it not," say the Vedas. So, it must be here now--in every time and at every place.

Not only that, but this which is found "at every point in space or time," must be found not only without, but within as well. There could not even actually be an interface between "within" and "without"--simply one unbroken actuality.

This being the case, the Self which you are looking for would have to be the composition of all that you see--and you, as the seer.

So, for the enlightened, Absolute awareness is not a special condition, state or unrepeated experience. It is one's continual realization that not anything could ever, under any circumstance, be separate from omnipresent Being.

Abandon the expectation that you will encounter the Self at some time or place in the future, or "experience" such an "event" again. You do not "approach" That which you already are. Self-realization is merely recognizing that not anything has ever been apart from That which is without limitation in its ubiquitous presence.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/06/13/poonjas-dilemma#comments0Awakening PurposeRobert WolfeRobert WolfeYou query: "What is the purpose of being awake in the world?" Is one to "go out and 'help' other people?" It's obvious, as you point out, that no singular individual is going to change the world (or the "establishment," or system, as [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/05/31/awakening-purpose
Thu, 31 May 2012 15:33:41 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/05/31/awakening-purposeYou query: "What is the purpose of being awake in the world?" Is one to "go out and 'help' other people?" It's obvious, as you point out, that no singular individual is going to change the world (or the "establishment," or system, as you might say), awakened or unawakened.

It must be obvious that 1) if there is to be a possibility for change, it must start with you; 2) the only change that you could have direct control over would be your own. You state this clearly in your letter to Will: "The most important thing you can do for anyone or anything is to allow your own self to awaken."

So, the what-to-do is to awaken. The what-do-do, if anything, after awakening can only be known after awakening.

This means that the best thing that can be done for yourself, others or the world is for enlightened clarity to be present. Out of that unconfused, undeniable clarity one then acts. Any actions prior to the above are confused actions--from the standpoint of the "self," "others" and the "world."

The purpose of being awake arises from being awake.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/05/31/awakening-purpose#comments1Miracles Need Not ApplyRobert WolfeRobert Wolfe“…your letter is appreciated. It is not easy to chew on this stuff without quality feedback. And I applaud the definition/explanation of Krishnamurti’s statement….about fixing; self improving; changing what is so—and fancying all [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/05/20/miracles-need-not-apply
Sun, 20 May 2012 13:07:59 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/05/20/miracles-need-not-apply“…your letter is appreciated. It is not easy to chew on this stuff without quality feedback. And I applaud the definition/explanation of Krishnamurti’s statement….about fixing; self improving; changing what is so—and fancying all of the world’s idealistic values.

I’ve spent 13 years in The Course’s thought and philosophy. I do not see how it has helped me in any way.

It would take more time than I am willing to give to manifest my personal displeasure with The Course’s failure to explain or give relief to the various issues that were often quite specifically enumerated.

I do not believe in ‘miracles,’ or any such thing as divine intervention, or ‘answered’ prayer….there is no need of miracles. There is only a need to awaken if sleeping and dreaming (illusions) are causing us all of this grief.

So, what about a goal? I don’t think I have any that one could identify. Even peace as a goal has eluded me. It seems you can’t make it happen.”

My (random) comments on your comments:

I think you are wiser to turn your attention to the words of Krishnamurti (to the extent that you have access to them): my conclusion regarding what I have read of The Course in Miracles is that it is highly ambiguous, in the same way as the Koran or Bible; a person can “read into it” virtually anything she is pre-disposed to believe or want to hear. Concerning miracles, divine intervention and answered prayer, the Course (in my opinion) has a Christian undertone which can reinforce some of these “salvation” ideas. As you comment, there is no need of miracles: the “divine,” “sacred” or “holy” is at once what is seen and what is seeing.

And peace as a goal is an idealistic notion. You’ll not know true peace, and freedom, until you are free of goals, ambition, hope for things to be “better” in the “future.” That means: when you no longer think in terms of “this is peace,” “this is not peace,” then ironically you are at peace with what is—however it presents.

You write, “I’m having a hard time with any concept that provides for an an-“other.” You have a cellmate who is “an-other.” When will the letters of complaint end, about your steady string of cellmates? You were expecting the Dalai Lama? Having no irritation among two persons in a small cell (even husband and wife) is an idealistic notion, an unrealistic goal: there’ll be less anguish (for both of you) if you give up hope on that one.

“Even the idea that things mean something has lost its attraction.” And this can apply to the meaning and importance you give to the many personal slights that are directed toward you (whether deserved or not). Need you be offended by every so-called “offender” on your tier (whatever their uniform)? Rather than trying to “make peace happen,” there is only a need to awaken “if sleeping and dreaming (idealizing) are causing all of this grief.” Awakening won’t make peace happen—any more than it is (or is not) present now—in the external world. But it will have something to do about accommodating what is, absent impractical ideas about changing it.

“I have much to contemplate.” And you’re doing a good job of getting started on that, once that insight is present!

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/05/20/miracles-need-not-apply#comments0Science of the SagesRobert WolfeRobert WolfeScientists Encountering Nonduality from Quantum Physics to Cosmology to Consciousness.

Robert writes:

My first book, Living Nonduality, included a monograph regarding the implication of quantum entanglement ("http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/05/11/science-of-the-sages
Fri, 11 May 2012 17:14:39 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/05/11/science-of-the-sagesScientists Encountering Nonduality from Quantum Physics to Cosmology to Consciousness.

Robert writes:

My first book, Living Nonduality, included a monograph regarding the implication of quantum entanglement ("Science as Spirituality"). I have noticed, during my lifetime, that it takes a full generation (or maybe even half a century) for the import of significant scientific discoveries to begin to pervade our common understanding. When I was a youngster, a friend's father said of Einstein's E=mc^2, "It'll probably be hundreds of years before any but a few understand what this means." But, even today, it is comprehended by many that "energy and matter are equivalent." I've subsequently been surprised to find how little of what scientists are saying of quantum reality has penetrated into the minds of people interested in spiritual teachings. Since I have been reading in these realms of both science and spirituality, I felt it was important to show how thoroughly many modern scientists have come to recognize the connections between quantum physics and the intuition of mystical sages over the centuries. If you yourself aren't aware of these inter-connections, it's time that you were! I've tried to keep technical abstractions to a minimum; you won't need a background in mathematics or physics. - RW

Intriguing facts of the vastness and miraculous complexity of our universe, coupled with reports from scientists that inseparability is the fundamental nature of our existence.

Science of the Sages, Robert's latest book, is a tour through the contemporary scientific view of the universe, from cosmology to subatomic particles, with an eye on its harmony with the conscious insight that has been the message of sages throughout human history.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/05/11/science-of-the-sages#comments0CrucialRobert WolfeRobert WolfeQuestion: “Different spiritual teachers emphasize different things. I find your clarity the most helpful. What would say are the most important http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/05/06/crucial
Sun, 06 May 2012 16:49:29 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/05/06/crucialQuestion: “Different spiritual teachers emphasize different things. I find your clarity the most helpful. What would say are the most important teachings for the seeker?

Answer: As a consequence of my talks with dozens of persons, only two points have proven to be crucial (Latin: “cross”).

The seeker must comprehend (and when she does, the seeking is definitely finished) that what is being sought, the Absolute, is not something which we eventually come to encounter—because, due to its very nature, it is always inescapable. All spiritual traditions refer to sacred, or divine, Being as infinite, eternal, without limitation. Obviously, such an actuality has to be present where and when you are, regardless of your location in time or space. The seeker cannot, under any circumstances, be apart from what is sought.

The second element of the teachings, which instill the Awareness out of which we then live our lives in complete Oneness, relates to the major question that arises: “If the Absolute is present here now, why don’t I feel it?”

Infinite, eternal, formless Beingness is present not only where every form is, material or immaterial; it permeates all that exists: “Nowhere is it not,” as the Vedas put it. Your very Being is whatever you happen to be feeling, thinking or doing. The infinite, eternal, unbounded Absolute is the doer, the source, of all that is ever being done.

When this principle is clearly recognized, it is seen that the Absolute is the fundamental, universal identity of all that exists. In other words, as the Vedas state, “Tat tvam asi”—That thou art. You and the Ultimate Reality are not two different things. This realization of Oneness is the ending of division—duality, as one’s basic, conditioned perspective—and thus of conflict. Out of this Absolute awareness, then, one lives the balance of one’s life; confusion about the nature of life and how to live it have been utterly clarified. What is regarded as the self is no longer viewed to be anything other than ultimate Being present in material form.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/05/06/crucial#comments5Outside the BoxRobert WolfeRobert WolfeQuestion: In reading your material...the point has been reached where it is obvious the mind must admit it no longer is of use in this "search". I can understand where a unitive perspective then requires an 'intuitive' leap. Do you have an suggestions in terms of how this intuitive perception could be nurtured, instigated, formed, switched [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/04/15/outside-the-box
Sun, 15 Apr 2012 17:10:32 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/04/15/outside-the-boxQuestion: In reading your material...the point has been reached where it is obvious the mind must admit it no longer is of use in this "search". I can understand where a unitive perspective then requires an 'intuitive' leap. Do you have an suggestions in terms of how this intuitive perception could be nurtured, instigated, formed, switched to, enticed, facilitated, happened on, etc.? Is there anything discrete the mind might actually do that could be considered helpful in finding this alternative way of perceiving?

You're correct in your surmise (from experience) that mere ratiocination generally has a limitation when it regards nonduality.

For you to think of something, there must be "somethingness." Can you think, in terms of objectification, of "nothingness" without conceiving of it as "some thing"?

Nonduality is (to use a favorite phrase of quantum physicists) counter-intuitive: when nonduality is clearly understood, there is no intuitionapart from it that is understanding it. To put it in your terms, the mind that is searching for That, is That itself. Why? Because not anything which can be conceived (such as That) is not the same That which is doing the conceiving. To put it in Advaita terms, you are That--because all things (whether some thing or no thing) are That. And since all things are That, you (as That) cannot conceive of any thing which is not That.

See why there are Zen koans?

I'm not trying to sketch something that is more mysterious than it need by. But nonduality is the original thinking-outside-the-box. The box is the limited conception of limited forms (material or immaterial). Take away all six sides of the box ("no mind," in Zen) and what do you have? No conceivable "thing." You might say that the insight has to do with subtraction, rather than addition; or looking at this from the standpoint of a mind that is empty of notions, as to what is to be discovered.

In practical expression, if you are contemplating any two, or more, things, you are operating in the realm of duality. ("Me" outside of That.)

If you are aware that this actuality (which the sages are referring to) is thoroughly indivisible and therefore does not admit of any separate "parts," then it is intuited that there is no individual "you" which could possibly be incorporated in It. The "search" ends, with the "searcher." This, then, is nonduality: an understanding which is immediate, and transcendent of reasoning limited to dualistic conceptions.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/04/15/outside-the-box#comments0In a RutRobert WolfeRobert Wolfeidea which you cling to. When you cling to anything, you cannot be “free”.

You have a notion that freedom (or realization) has something to do with “betterment”. That when you “improve” to some imagined standard, that you will have reached the peak, the zenith that you [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/04/02/in-a-rut
Mon, 02 Apr 2012 22:52:40 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/04/02/in-a-rutidea which you cling to. When you cling to anything, you cannot be “free”.

You have a notion that freedom (or realization) has something to do with “betterment”. That when you “improve” to some imagined standard, that you will have reached the peak, the zenith that you imagine represents the “highest point”. This supposed improvement can represent an increase in knowledge, or “wisdom”. Or an improvement in one’s character or behavior or “outlook on life”, one’s attitude—such as learning to be kinder, trying to be more understanding, controlling impatience, etc., etc. You suppose that such improvements in one’s person is what elevates one to that zenith.

If this “ever upward” bias was merely an idea, it could cause little harm. But it is an idea, a fixation, which you cling to—and insist it must be part of “realization”. You have been told that this notion is false, but you will not abandon it.

Because you presume that realization is a process in time, an evolutionary or accretionary process which takes time, you envision this as a “path” along which you continue your improvement until the improvements pay off in realization. Perhaps you have puzzled over Krishnamurti’s statement: Truth is a pathless land. Path-less. No path. No progression.

You have heard and read that it is purely a matter of subtraction, not addition; not accumulation—of merit, knowledge, time, momentum or any other thing.

You have heard and read that what is being sought is here (no path) now (no accumulation in time is involved).

You have heard and read that what is being sought—the “zenith”—is a condition in which the separate “person” ceases to be where one’s identity resides. So, of what value is accumulation of merit, wisdom, etc., to a non-existent person?

You are telling me that you perceive an obstacle on the path. Your idea of a path is itself the obstacle. If the One is omnipresent, your path of improvement—which takes your focus out of the present —is leading you away from what can (in this moment) be seen!

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/04/02/in-a-rut#comments1The Real Isn't IdealRobert WolfeRobert WolfeFriend: I don't think my view of the Bible, especially the New Testament, has ever changed as fast as it did during this [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/03/26/the-real-isnt-ideal
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 09:00:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/03/26/the-real-isnt-idealFriend: I don't think my view of the Bible, especially the New Testament, has ever changed as fast as it did during this last month. It's all beginning to seem idealistic to me....There is no God that has anything to do with what we "experience". It just is "what it is", and the IS not only has nothing to do with it; the IS doesn't even know about it....I've already seen enough of this "stuff". None of it matters, except what works for you. And I've been entertaining alot of stuff that has not worked for me....The problem with all of that "stuff" is that if it isn't working for you, and you have adopted it, then you will just keep blaming yourself for what you have no control over....I do what I need to do, though it is not always easy to determine what that is. The "anger" is almost a constant; and to believe that I shouldn't be, is completely idealistic and the harbinger of "guilt".

Robert: You have been pondering these matters for the years that we have corresponded. It's good to see that finally you are beginning to recognize the idealizing which has been so much of a fixture in your relationship to the world. Not only has it not worked for you, it does not work for anyone.

To maintain the presumption that "what is" should not be as it is, or could be other than what it is, is nothing more than a contentious idea: such is the meaning of "idealization."

How many of those people that you come in contact with are resisting "what is" by clinging to the idea that "it should not be"?

How many collectives of people--i.e., countries/governments--are basing their activities/policies on ideals that have no basis in reality (security through aggression or control, for example)?

That you are beginning to notice and question your own idealism ("he shouldn't be doing what he's, in fact, doing") is the proper place to focus this practical insight.

Whenever you establish standards of behavior for yourself--and others--there is going to be disappointment; and, as you noted, either guilt, blame or anger will generally ensue.

As Byron Katie says, "Whenever I argue with what is, I lose." No ideals or standards: nothing to lose.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/03/26/the-real-isnt-ideal#comments0Presence Became Reality!Robert WolfeRobert Wolfe
As I have written to one correspondent, reported in my book, your letter makes my day! [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/03/23/presence-became-reality
Fri, 23 Mar 2012 13:53:14 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/03/23/presence-became-reality
As I have written to one correspondent, reported in my book, your letter makes my day!

As you indicated, when the questions have ended (or all answered themselves in nondual awareness), the seeking has ended. Presence--all that is present--is what (we now discover) we have actually been looking for. We stop excluding anything from (or adding anything onto) the Totality. It is sufficient as it is--and "as it is" is Presence, in its totality. You cannot possibly be apart from That. And so you can write, "The Presence that phenomena now appear in is home!"

As this nondual awareness becomes more customary, we can talk about any of the discoveries, if you feel the need to.

Cordially-
RW

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/03/23/presence-became-reality#comments0Wherever I Go, There I AmRobert WolfeRobert Wolfe
Wherever I go, there I am--in all the myriad forms that encompass what has become an infinite, boundary-free life. [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/03/19/wherever-i-go-there-i-am
Mon, 19 Mar 2012 14:12:11 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/03/19/wherever-i-go-there-i-am
Wherever I go, there I am--in all the myriad forms that encompass what has become an infinite, boundary-free life.

There is a gravitation toward blessed anonymity and absorption into the natural world, where remnants of personal identity evaporate in the dry desert air.

Quiet mind teaches the exquisite perfection of the interconnected web of all animate and inanimate life. Every cactus and grain of sand is in divine temporal placement. Opposites perfectly balanced: sun-faced Buddha, moon-faced Buddha.

Letting go of the distinction and interference allows the Way of things to flow in natural harmony. All is well in this prickly, but peace-filled, world.

Ultimate reality (or "divine Presence") would be, as has been described, all-inclusive.

Therefore, you cannot be outside of this.

So, you cannot have an encountering experience with something which already envelops you.

Hence, no time is necessary in order to be in contact with it. It is not something which you will come to encounter at some future point in time.

Realizing this, is to realize that you have never been apart from that which you are seeking.

Simply being aware of this, the seeking ends. This is what is called "liberation."

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/03/16/simple-truth-simplified#comments1Where to GoRobert WolfeRobert WolfeQ: Dear Robert, since reading your Gospel of Thomas and much of http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/03/13/where-to-go
Tue, 13 Mar 2012 17:19:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/03/13/where-to-goQ: Dear Robert, since reading your Gospel of Thomas and much of Living Nonduality, it seems obvious that priority should be given to the quest for realization by disengaging from worldly activities that tend to keep one immersed in doership. Having resolved to do so, somehow today such a course does not appear to be either obvious or necessary: Grateful for your observations on this predicament.

A: There is no right or wrong answer, Joe, to this question of non-attachment to the relative world. Some feel impelled to cut as many ties as possible, others take no such actions and find that they are not hindered. Even from a practical standpoint, much could depend on the degree of one's obligatory responsibilities and unavoidable commitments.

It would seem obvious that where one is unencumbered by practical matters, there is greater latitude for the kind of contemplative introspection that generally tends to be conducive to an exceptional insight.

However, the awakening to the nondual nature of our existence has occurred in all kinds of differing circumstances.

In other words, a change in circumstances may or may not be tangential to a shift in perspective. And non-attachment involves more than mere detachment from material matters. As has been said, the final renunciation is of the self who would renounce.

The key factor is this: that which we have come to feel that we need to seek is, the nondual teachings assert, omnipresent. If that is true, not anything could be apart from or outside of it, nor could even exclude it (thus it is even said to be "within you"). In short, one comes to realize that this which we are seeking is actually inescapable. Why else is it stated, "That thou art"?

Why, then, would it matter where you are or what you are doing (or not doing), when you recognize that any and all movements are simply "That doing what it does"?

When such a realization is perfectly clear, the sense of being a separate, individuated self disappears into an abiding awareness of the Absolute. Where, then, is the self which needs to be in some particular place or activity or circumstance in order to attain the object of its seeking? No separation. No self. No seeking.

With Self-realization, some changes in circumstances may ensue; a substantial degree of non-attachment from worldly matters, for example. But the latter is more likely to be a development of the former, than vice versa.

It is clear from my letter that I am coming from a dualistic point of view.

At the end of the letter, you ask me what ought to be done, about my interpretation of what's occurring.

What needs to be done is for me to stop living in a world that is make believe. I can see, as long as I continue to bounce back and forth between the relative and the absolute, that I will have no peace.

Looking over the letter, I was surprised how caught up I was in all this stuff that was obviously judgmental and totally made up in my mind. Pure imagination!

So again, at the end of the letter you say, "So what do you think ought to be done about that?" And you underline THAT.

Nothing needs to be done about THAT, THAT is perfect! And that is what I am.

End of story.

I want this to be the end of my story. And I know that the wanting of the story to end is just another story and that's okay too, because that's just THAT, thinking that.

I know what I am.

This space that I am has always been here. It doesn't matter what comes and goes in it. It never does. And it is OK with everything.

What I need now is vigilance. Vigilance to the truth.

When the whispers of the small self try to cause me to doubt, I will welcome them here, no longer afraid.

I now see clearly, all is That and welcome. There is nothing to resist. And nothing to get.

Your words are very clear, Robert. Thank you.

When we met, you said Krishnamurti said just seeing the false as the false was enough. It's funny, but I was reading Nisargadatta recently and came across a talk where he said exactly the same thing.

All is well! I hope we get a chance to talk again soon.

Sending a heart felt thanks, Jim.

[Response from Robert]

Jim:

Yours is the kind of letter that makes my day. This represents clear seeing! In terms of vigilance, you can't lose That which never was not already present: you can only deny what has been seen.

But I understand what you mean; you'll be giving attention to what is now unfolding. Keep a copy of your statement and re-read it from time to time. Also, One Essence could be particularly meaningful to you at this time--now that you'll thoroughly understand it.

If at any time you need to talk further, that's what I'm here for.

Cordially - RW

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/03/08/message-received#comments0Harmonious BeingRobert WolfeRobert WolfeIntelligence which holds in equilibrium and harmony every iota of existence, external and internal to each of the [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/03/06/harmonious-being
Tue, 06 Mar 2012 21:36:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/03/06/harmonious-beingIntelligence which holds in equilibrium and harmony every iota of existence, external and internal to each of the manifest forms.

If you recognize that "you" cannot possibly be apart from this all-inclusive actuality, then you must also recognize that anything "other-than-you" is likewise imbued and affected.

This is not to say that one is to ignore that we have the capability of recognizing a particular named form, or entity, as compared to a dissimilar form: thus even the enlightened (such as Buddha or Ramana) occasion the relative terms "you" and "I," and answer to their name.

The point of the teachings of Oneness is to fully acknowledge in consciousness that there is an underlying interconnection in all of these forms of appearance, which supersedes seeming distinctiveness.

Yes, there is a "me" and a "you"; but to what source do all manifested things owe their common existence?

If this underlying nature of Beingness is not clear to you, not anything else which is said in the nondual teachings will ever make any sense to the seeker of jnana.

However, if the aforesaid is clear to you, then you can surely recognize that everything which these apparent forms act out owes its existence to the ubiquitous Intelligence which informs every aspect of Being--including your being, and whatever it is that you are manifestly being.

Your "loop of thoughts and feelings" and perception "I am not good enough" are not somehow magically left out of this universal development of expressed Beingness. IT does not act out in (what you consider to be) a purely positive way: positive and negative are in existential harmony.

You and all others are expressions of this Being--as is all that is done--whether you concede that this is so, or not. (Peruse also, Natalie Gray blog post of 2-22-12.)

The "the world is something in consciousness," and not vice-versa, is evident when we consider that when our animated consciousness is absent (as in death; under anesthesia; indeed, even in deep sleep), the world itself is not a perceived reality. Thus, what we know as the world appears only within the framework of our animated consciousness.

As to "consciousness is not in the world" (the vice-versa part), given the complete absence of the finite world--in such conditions as death, etc.--the assumed consciousness of the world evaporates along with the perceived world itself. Note that in the condition of death, etc., even the very idea that there is such a state as consciousness disappears.

Secondly: "Consciousness is temporary; what we are is eternal." That consciousness is temporary is evident: a person's consciousness is attendant to one's life; death, in general, signifies the end of, or absence of, consciousness in the temporal organism.

The impermanent organism itself is a manifestation in, and of, an everlasting Presence. Being an expression of that Presence, the organism owes its identity to that manifesting Presence. Thus, what we are is nothing more than one of the manifold appearances of the eternal.

Your Nisargadatta quote says, "Eternal means: now and forever....That state transcends knowledge and ignorance [thus, consciousness]..." He goes on to compare the eternal state to that of an "unborn child"--no consciousness of a world, or even of consciousness itself.

And in our "un-conscious" state, there is not even such a reality as "one." So, this pertains to your pondering, "Is everything actually one?"

Therefore, Nisargadatta can say of differences, "there aren't any." Not even a "one," as opposed to "not-one."

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/03/02/not-even-one#comments0What About LoveRobert WolfeRobert WolfeQ: Having just completed Living Nonduality there is a sense that realization is simple, but empty. Does love fit into the equation anywhere? Is the Absolute totally devoid of feeling and impersonal? Is love just another man-made illusion?

A: What you are referring to, Mary Ann, as "the Absolute totality" is also known [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/02/24/what-about-love
Fri, 24 Feb 2012 08:18:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/02/24/what-about-loveQ: Having just completed Living Nonduality there is a sense that realization is simple, but empty. Does love fit into the equation anywhere? Is the Absolute totally devoid of feeling and impersonal? Is love just another man-made illusion?

A: What you are referring to, Mary Ann, as "the Absolute totality" is also known as the Void, or Emptiness, in the sutras. This is to say that it is No-thing-ness. Being no definable thing, it is devoid of definable characteristics; or in itself, as you say, it is "devoid of feeling and impersonal."

All qualities and characteristics, then, are projections of the consciousness, or mind, which manifests from this nondescript ground of Being. This includes such categorizations has "love" or "hate." To that which simply eternally and infinitely Is, "creation" and "destruction" are distinctions reserved for the mind in which they're conceived.

And yet, there is something about the aliveness in the universe, and its balance and harmony, which--though benevolent is too strong of a word--sages tend to describe as at least benign, if not charitable or perhaps indulgent. Some go so far as to give this cosmic tendency the title Love (as in "God is love": Ramana). At the very least, most think of the cosmic orderliness as at least a positive element.

The second part of your query has to do with the realization of this Emptiness, or Absolute: "Does love then fit into the equation anywhere?"

If you were to think in terms of what you might describe as loving--or benign or benevolent, even compassionate--behavior, where would you more likely expect to see this expressed: in a self-centered person or in a person whose limited self-identification has evaporated?

When a person has emptied out her conditioned conceptualizations, such as the self-image, there is something else which is operating through the organism. Looking at the lives of the enlightened sages, this appears to have a benign, or charitable, cast to it.

Krishnamurti often spoke about this development. "LOVE is the total absence of the separate 'I,' ego, or self. There is no reason for Love. To have a reason for Love is to have a motive, which comes from the separate self....IF YOU HAVE NO LOVE, do what you will, go after all the gods on earth, do all the social activities, try to reform the poor, enter politics, write books, write poems--you are a dead human being. Without Love your problems will increase, multiply endlessly. And with Love, do what you will, there is no risk, there is no conflict."

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/02/24/what-about-love#comments0Only ThatRobert WolfeRobert Wolfeis a "you" and "me." No problem with that.

But the question that the nondual teachings are asking you to penetrate is this: What is the true nature, the ultimate Reality, that is commonly the http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/02/20/only-that
Mon, 20 Feb 2012 13:31:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/02/20/only-thatis a "you" and "me." No problem with that.

But the question that the nondual teachings are asking you to penetrate is this: What is the true nature, the ultimate Reality, that is commonly the identity of "you" and "me"?

You and me are impermanent forms; all such forms come and go. There is a Presence in which all forms arise, and into which they will disappear; this Presence does not come and go.

Ramana has put it this way: that which does not come and go, which is eternal or everlasting, is the only thing which is "real"; all else is "unreal," merely a passing appearance.

All forms--e.g., you and me--owe their original "identity" to this ground of Being. So, from the standpoint of ultimate reality, who are you? Who am I? What difference is there, in that context?

That is what is meant by, "There is nobody," no "thing" or entity. Therefore, one comes to realize that there is no "me". And, given that realization, there are no "others."

This is not to say that the appearance of a me and others even needs to be absent. The realization involves recognizing "who," or "what," these are appearances (or manifestations) of. That (Beingness) thou art--thou applying to you, me and all others. "There is only That," the sutras say.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/02/20/only-that#comments3What Is SeenRobert WolfeRobert Wolfeand seeker" have come to an end: the observer and the observed are not now two different [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/02/10/what-is-seen
Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:00:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/02/10/what-is-seenand seeker" have come to an end: the observer and the observed are not now two different things.

Thanks for your comments about what is now seen through the eyes: no longer conceptual objectification, "so nothing is seen; at least, no-thing in particular...a seamless indivisible whole is observed--by 'nobody'...this is not a spacey, disassociated state...attention can be changed...in which case anything can be conceptually seen: some 'thing' is seen."

For an awakened person, as you described, relative objects can be viewed and identified as such by their names. But one now, as it were, sees through objects as separate entities, in the sense of recognizing that the commonality of all appearances is as manifestations of a ubiquitous, interpenetrating Beingness, or formless Presence. Thus, the observer and the observed are perceived as indistinguishable from each other: no-body is aware of no-thing.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/02/10/what-is-seen#comments0Infinite AwarenessRobert WolfeRobert WolfeQ: [From a comment on the post "Will It Last?"]: "Are you aware of the awareness in all your experiences?"

A: If you think in terms of enlightened awareness as some particular state, then you are thinking in terms of this state as compared to that state. Any states you can conceive, all states, come and go; they [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/01/26/infinite-awareness
Thu, 26 Jan 2012 15:27:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/01/26/infinite-awarenessQ: [From a comment on the post "Will It Last?"]: "Are you aware of the awareness in all your experiences?"

A: If you think in terms of enlightened awareness as some particular state, then you are thinking in terms of this state as compared to that state. Any states you can conceive, all states, come and go; they are impermanent.

Enlightened awareness is not awareness of some particular state or condition as being preferable to some other state. It is awareness of the ultimate actuality which is present in every condition of form or formlessness, which recognizes all things as the same thing in transcendence of partitions. Therefore, in enlightened awareness, there are no separate states.

In other words, from the standpoint of Absolute awareness, whatever your present state or condition (if you choose to make such distinctions) at any given moment, "that too is It."

When you have an idea that enlightenment is some discrete (therefore limited) state of mind, you will notice that such a state of mind--like all states of mind--will be present at some times and not present at others.

When you've come to see that no state of awareness is excluded from the boundless presence of the Absolute, there is no state which is expected to be replaced by any other state. To suppose otherwise is to be "mired in duality."

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/01/26/infinite-awareness#comments0Will It Last?Robert WolfeRobert Wolfeawakening unfolds is unique for each person. Varied experiences or observed phenomena have been described differently by a [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/01/19/will-it-last
Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:41:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/01/19/will-it-lastawakening unfolds is unique for each person. Varied experiences or observed phenomena have been described differently by a number of people. What is common to all of these noticed conditions is that they are impermanent.

But, in particular, what is common to all experiences is that they occur within our awareness. The awareness, of what is occurring, does not itself have any particular interest in, or concern about, whatever it is which is appearing in it. While all of the experiences and phenomena come and go, the awareness of them remains constant.

Phenomenal experiences do not occur in our deepest sleep: whatever awareness is present, at such time, is empty awareness. It is that same fundamental awareness which continues to be aware of whatever appears in awareness during the waking and dreaming periods. This awareness does not come and go, as does anything which appears within it.

Whatever response or reaction is noticed concerning observed phenomenon or experience is also occurring within this condition of impartial awareness. These various developments too come and go, while the awareness of appearances remains constant and unaffected by whatever is viewed. Each night, in our deepest sleep, the slate is erased, awareness is emptied.

Therefore, whatever appears on the slate, from day to day, has no lasting importance. Present in awareness will be experiences and responses to experiences. That fundamental element of your being which is aware of every experience and response will continually be untouched by any development, day after day after day.

Spiritual awakening concerns itself with that which is lasting, rather than what is ephemeral.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/01/19/will-it-last#comments2Pre/Post MortemRobert WolfeRobert Wolfedeath, is there still an awareness of life?” Let us see what can be intuited.

Are we perhaps getting a daily—actually, nightly—clue as to post-consciousness? To use your [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/01/09/prepost-mortem
Mon, 09 Jan 2012 10:48:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/01/09/prepost-mortemdeath, is there still an awareness of life?” Let us see what can be intuited.

Are we perhaps getting a daily—actually, nightly—clue as to post-consciousness? To use your words, “being presence without awareness of any thing, because every thing disappears.” Where “self” and “body” drop away in deep sleep, can we anticipate death to be anything less?

Our fundamental state of awareness is an aspect of the Ultimate Reality, but this all-inclusive Reality would not be aware of any thing which is not “itself.” Being all things, it is not any thing in particular, so it is not subjective regarding whatever could be objectified.

So, if this Ultimate Reality is your ultimate reality, you would not be aware of life (as objectifiable, or an appearance) because you are life. And if you were aware of life, you could be aware of death. In a reality where there is no conceivable thing, there would presumably be no defined states as “existing” or “not existing.” I suppose we could say, what is it about nothingness that you don’t understand?

So, regarding the fear of death (which you identified as “the fear of nothing”), mere Presence is present as “self” now. When (limited) self falls away from (unlimited) Presence, is there no longer the actuality which we think of as Presence? That is the actuality into which the self initially appeared. Where could it go when the self disappears?

So, post hoc, you will in a sense be “more” than Lou; but in an equal sense, you’ll be entirely nothing. In neither sense, of course, will you be Lou. (Which you are not even, in deep sleep, now.)

My newly published book, One Essence, can assist you in attuning to this Absolute (“without limitation”) perspective. Meanwhile consider that, every night, you are receiving a reminder of your Ultimate Reality. And that Reality knows nothing of fear, “death” as apart from “life,” or “Lou” who conceives of either. Could this be a hint as to how we are to live our life?

******

A woman asked Ramana, “Is it possible to know the condition of an individual after death?”

Ramana: “It is possible….You are eternal….Until this truth is realized, there will always be [anxiety] due to false values arising from wrong knowledge and wrong identity.”

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/01/09/prepost-mortem#comments0No MatterRobert WolfeRobert WolfeQuestion: I just reached a page [in Living Nonduality] that stated something along the lines of "that even in deep sleep, this something remains constantly present" which I'm having difficulty with. How do we know this for sure? Is it possible that EVERYTHING and NOTHING stops, that even PRESENCE is absent when we are in deep [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/12/31/no-matter
Sat, 31 Dec 2011 21:02:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/12/31/no-matterQuestion: I just reached a page [in Living Nonduality] that stated something along the lines of "that even in deep sleep, this something remains constantly present" which I'm having difficulty with. How do we know this for sure? Is it possible that EVERYTHING and NOTHING stops, that even PRESENCE is absent when we are in deep sleep?

Answer: Even as a fetus in the womb, awareness is present. The eyes are closed, and the environment is dark, but the organism still responds experientially to certain stimulus. Then the baby is born, the eyes are open, the environment is multitudinous, and the same awareness continues undiminished.

Throughout our lives, an unabated awareness monitors every activity or inactivity. Yet, the awareness itself cares naught what is seen, heard or considered.

All living things evidently share in awareness; even plants exhibit a responsive awareness to their environment. And awareness in any particular human shows no characteristics of being different from that of any other human.

As an organism, every single thing which you experience is experienced within awareness. And to the extent to which awareness itself can be experienced, it too is merely another experience.

It is not "you"--an object of awareness--which is seeing through your eyes, it is this ever-present be-ing. It is not you which is aware of thoughts--objects in awareness--it is, again, awareness. Any thing which you can think of that you are, is simply objectified in awareness. So, clearly, it is the awareness which is the you that perceives, not the objectifications in awareness identified as characteristics of your self. There is no self outside of awareness.

Whence the source of this awareness? Surely not you: it is not a "creation" which you had any control in initiating. It was in existence long before your organism was germinated, and will continue in existence far after "you" are conceived as a fixture in awareness.

So, the sages say, recognize that essence which is aware of "you"--and every movement, concept and experience--as you. And this, which is your unchanging being, is itself without partial interest in any thing which occurs in the world, indeed the universe, that can appear as an object of awareness. From the standpoint of that which is aware, not anything ultimately matters.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/12/31/no-matter#comments0I: First Person Singular?Robert WolfeRobert WolfeQuestion: When you use the word "I" do you always mean the absolute or do you sometimes mean the organism?

Answer: From the standpoint of our habituated http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/12/27/i-first-person-singular
Tue, 27 Dec 2011 11:17:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/12/27/i-first-person-singularQuestion: When you use the word "I" do you always mean the absolute or do you sometimes mean the organism?

Answer: From the standpoint of our habituated dualistic conditioning, the self-reference “I” designates the separate entity which we presume ourself to be. And, of course, it is this I which functions more or less effectively in the relative, material world.

The point of the nondual teachings is to determine the true nature of the conscious being which we think of as I.

So, in terms of Self-realization, it is not essential that the conception of “I,” as identified with the organism, disappear from the psyche irremediably. The question is: is there an unequivocal comprehension of “who” (or “what”) this I actually re-presents?

Prior to awakening, our I is limited to an image or a personal self. When the nondual actuality of our existence is clearly perceived, this sense of “being an I” dissolves into an awareness of be-ing which transcends identification of the person.

The I which you have identified with the organism can continue to function, to meet its bodily needs, in the relative work-day world. But the thoughts, feelings, words and actions of this material form are now witnessed in awareness from a thoroughly different perspective. This I is the I AM, or simply present awareness, in which the I-am-this or I-am-so-and-so makes its ever-changing appearance. Ramana used the term I-I to refer to that being which goes beyond the limited personified I.

Once the I-I is realized as present, in other words, the activities and experiences of the relative I are seen for what they are: of no ultimate consequence.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/12/27/i-first-person-singular#comments0Simply PutRobert WolfeRobert WolfeI no longer know where to find the page that I typed out. But the significance of this, I [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/12/24/simply-put
Sat, 24 Dec 2011 18:12:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/12/24/simply-putI no longer know where to find the page that I typed out. But the significance of this, I would say, is that a moment can arise when the truth which one is seeking is discovered to be within; it is not dependent upon externals. And the awareness that what was sought has been found, is beyond doubt. Also, when that clarity is completely present, it remains so--effortlessly.

What is discovered, in that moment, is: That which is sought is actually inescapable; it is always ever-present, whether we recognize it or not. And, too: as Nisargadatta's book is titled, I am That; the "seeker" and the "sought" cannot, in truth, be separated.

This recognition, two decades ago, is likely the substance of what I typed out, though I must have used dozens of words in the initial attempt to express it.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/12/24/simply-put#comments1In the Person of DualismRobert WolfeRobert WolfeTo be specific, this can be noticed in the concern we express regarding the presumed relationship and [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/12/11/in-the-person-of-dualism
Sun, 11 Dec 2011 22:30:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/12/11/in-the-person-of-dualismTo be specific, this can be noticed in the concern we express regarding the presumed relationship and complicated interworkings of such selective concepts as "mind," "thought," "witness" and so on.

To one who perceives in terms of being a (separate) "self," that self's mind, thoughts, awareness et al are elements of a fragmented reality which needs to be "harmonized" with effort.

For the one for whom the image of being an isolated, separate entity has dissolved, the problematic ideas of "mind," "thoughts," "witnessing," "awareness" etcetera disappear with it.

The point of the nondual teachings has basically to do with freedom and peace. There will be neither, as long as there is a notion that the present actuality should not be what it is: "My mind should not be in this state"; "It would be better if my thoughts were absent"; "Some times I am the Witness, most times I'm not"; "My awareness does not seem to be what my guru says it should be..."

Can you see that such "better/worse" attitudes are dualism personified? The sagacious teachings urge us to transcend such designations, and to recognize that a singular, unbroken actuality is the essence of all that is occurring--good, bad or otherwise.

When you can be present with whatever seems to be appearing as mind, thought, awareness, witness and so forth, without equivocation, that is the freedom and peace that the rishis are describing. When there are not preferences for some particular state or condition over another, where can consternation arise?

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/12/11/in-the-person-of-dualism#comments2True PracticeRobert WolfeRobert WolfeComment/Question: I woke up in the middle of the night with a question I wish I had asked, so much so that I was tempted to call him [Robert] back and ask it and add that segment to the interview. That is, his total rejection of techniques and practices, which all traditions and traditional teachers have advocated and which he himself [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/12/07/true-practice
Wed, 07 Dec 2011 00:25:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/12/07/true-practiceComment/Question: I woke up in the middle of the night with a question I wish I had asked, so much so that I was tempted to call him [Robert] back and ask it and add that segment to the interview. That is, his total rejection of techniques and practices, which all traditions and traditional teachers have advocated and which he himself practiced. Later in the interview, he suggested that people go back and read the traditional spiritual literature post-awakening. Well, if they do that, they’re going to find advocations of practices and techniques.

Answer: Prior to getting the point of the nondual teachings--still a "seeker," not a "finder"--the full truth of what the enlightened masters have written, or are saying, obviously is not yet evident to us.

When finally the "Aha!" moment has come to pass, we can now go back and re-read those same spiritual texts and a completely different, and "new," dimension of the teachings is fully revealed.

Prior to awakening, we read about or hear about some particular discipline or disciplines, and may engage in such a "practice."

Once realization is present clearly, we come to comprehend that the real "practice" the teachers are emphasizing actually has to do with how we live our life, not some superficial system or methodology.

Krishnamurti, for example, speaks of "meditation" (one of his most common words) and "choiceless awareness" in the same breath.

In my own case, from the time I wake up in the morning until I fall asleep at night, there is a constant meditation. This is not some sort of effort to maintain a certain state or to control, change, or express a particular condition. It is a matter that can most simply be stated as being present with what is present. In my post-awakening re-reading of the sages, it was clear to me that this is what is truly meant as meditation--not some artificial, contrived activity.

You'll know when this meditation is your meditation when it is noticed to be completely effortless, and entirely without any idea that it is going to "benefit" you in any way.

When you are doing what you are doing (or saying, or thinking) without any idea that it would be "better" if you were doing something else, that is a true practice.

Thank you to Rafael Stoneman for posting. Also available on his nonprofit's site: www.ah-nonprofit.com.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/11/29/nonduality-discussion-group-with-robert#comments1Do It NowRobert WolfeRobert WolfeIn the mind of most people, meditation is associated with a goal-oriented program. Contemplation generally reflects a freer focus of attention.

There is a Buddhist tradition where one sits, the night through, in a cemetery. A practical correlation of that could be to spend an entire [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/11/16/do-it-now
Wed, 16 Nov 2011 15:28:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/11/16/do-it-nowIn the mind of most people, meditation is associated with a goal-oriented program. Contemplation generally reflects a freer focus of attention.

There is a Buddhist tradition where one sits, the night through, in a cemetery. A practical correlation of that could be to spend an entire waking day contemplating that it just may be the conclusion of the days you'll experience.

In truth, you do not certainly know if you will be alive tomorrow. Check a newspaper and you'll find a report, on any given day, of someone who went out their front door, not knowing that they would not again return.

One morning, contemplate that the next day you might close your eyes for the final time.

As you bathe, as you do your exercises, as you eat your breakfast, and then engage in the day's activities, be mindful that each movement you make, each sensation you experience, each encounter you have, even your every thought may never again be repeated.

The warmth of the sunshine, the blue of the sky, the bird overhead, they may not be viewed again. That child with the bright eyes, the woman with the attractive figure, the couple relaxing on the park bench, notice them carefully knowing it may not be repeatable.

When you open the mail, consider your friend's letter which you may not answer; when you set your wine glass back on its shelf, consider that you might not reach for it again.

Throughout the day, from morning till night, consider at every moment that this may be the last day you'll experience.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/11/16/do-it-now#comments0The "Pre" is PresentRobert WolfeRobert Wolfedoer," as the nondual sages say, does that mean that we are simply subject to fate?

Fate is defined as "the inevitable outcome of events, as predetermined by a superhuman agency, or god."

We have been [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/11/04/the-pre-is-present
Fri, 04 Nov 2011 10:33:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/11/04/the-pre-is-presentdoer," as the nondual sages say, does that mean that we are simply subject to fate?

Fate is defined as "the inevitable outcome of events, as predetermined by a superhuman agency, or god."

We have been enculturated, for centuries, with the notion of a celestial agent (or agents, before ancient religious currents reduced it to the singular) directing the affairs of humankind and worldly events so that these are pre-determined. There is a dualistic premise to this conception.

As early as the Hebrew bible (so-called Old Testament), the first verses of Genesis ("God created...") depict God hovering over—thus distanced from—the earth. His persistent activity, from thereon, is to separate this element from that element (light from darkness, ocean from land, etc.—beginning with the "formless and empty.")

Even into the New Testament, centuries later, this agent, positioned in a heaven, was described as acting upon—fatefully—the person of His own surrogate, Jesus.

The point of view of the nondual teachings is that there is not a god which exists "hovering over" the world and man.

Nor was the "world created" by such a personalized figure (Gen. 3:8, "walking in the Garden in the cool of the day"!), in the past tense.

That which is creating (and destroying) is present at every point in space and time: it is what is being created and destroyed. It need follow no particular preordained outcome, because—being unopposed by programmatic limitation—there isn't any outcome which can be wrong.

In other words, this Absolute presence is what is being done—in, by and as everything which exists (or doesn't exist). It would therefore be anything which could be predetermined, as well as anything which was not predetermined; the fated outcome and that outcome which was not fated. So, fate really has no relevance in such a context.

Even those who are relatively spiritually sophisticated have difficulty recognizing their conditioning which predicates a remote and willful instigator of particularized outcomes.

Arising from the cradle of Presence, Reality is granted to a story.An abundance of characters manifest, each a reflection of creation.The embodiment of feelings and sensations is [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/10/21/a-poem-of-awakening
Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:00:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/10/21/a-poem-of-awakening This, unfolding

Arising from the cradle of Presence, Reality is granted to a story.An abundance of characters manifest, each a reflection of creation.The embodiment of feelings and sensations is hypnotic;The never-ending commentary, mesmerizing.

Suddenly, consciousness chooses to recognize itself;And interest in this celluloid world is withdrawn.Nothing is imposed on Freedom.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/10/21/a-poem-of-awakening#comments0The Neutrino ParableRobert WolfeRobert Wolfeside and on through any other material it encounters. Though unseen, unfelt, unbeknown and unexperienced, this [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/10/15/the-neutrino-parable
Sat, 15 Oct 2011 13:31:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/10/15/the-neutrino-parableside and on through any other material it encounters. Though unseen, unfelt, unbeknown and unexperienced, this invasional radiation is your continual lifetime reality.

Suppose a neutrino were to cease its relentless journey, stop dead in the middle of your living room, and expand to the perimeter of the living room—and beyond. Walking into the living room, you are completely permeated by the presence of the neutrino, Ned. In fact, by its undeterrable nature, there is not anything in the living room which is not similarly inundated. In other words, not only everything within the room’s space, but the space between things, as well, is totally and fully occupied, engulfed, by Ned.

The outline of your body, your skin, “contains” Ned, on the inside; and is “contained” by Ned, on the outside: there is no filament between you and the neutrino, that is not also saturated by Ned. In fact, except for being a superimposition on Ned, there is nothing at all to set you apart from Ned.

And everything else in the room is likewise merely a form in something which—unrestrained by any obstacles—is unconfined to form. The lamp and Ned are no more apart than the lamp is separated from the space surrounding it. When you reach over to turn the lamp on, Ned’s “arm” moves through Ned’s “space” to connect with Ned’s “lamp”. When Ned’s “light” appears, it dispels Ned’s “darkness”.

But whether you connect with the lamp by touch, or not, you are already unknowingly connected to the lamp—and to everything else in the room.

In fact, unaware in the meanwhile that Ned has expanded beyond the unrestraining confines of the room and has completely filled the visible universe, you are insensibly connected with the furtherest galaxy.

But Ned, with its infinite capacity, has diffused beyond even the visible universe, to that expanse which we can but conclude disappears into infinity. So, as it happens, your own Nedness is in no way disconnected even from that which stretches eternally into the Unknown.

Now, no matter where you go, what you do, or your interconnections with other Nednesses, Ned is inescapable. You don’t have to go prospecting for Ned; Ned would be the prospector, the prospecting and the embodiment of the discovered. Your mother-in-law, coming to visit you, would be Ned passing through Ned to arrive at Ned for an indefinite stay with Ned. When your friend asks you, “What occurred while your wife’s mother visited”, you can say, “Nothing really! But remind me, sometime, to tell you about Ned.”

Your friend will be surprised (perhaps startled) to learn that she is no different from your mother-in-law (or your lamp) than the form of an ice cube is, in water. Be tactful; and don’t be surprised if your friend doubts it. But then, that’s Ned, doing what Ned does.

Forever Yours, Ned

P.S. You are not a neutrino (“neutral”), because a neutrino is also Ned. Ned is what has been characterized as the omnipresent God; or the universal Essence of Being—or other more-or-less confusing names; self/Self, for example: or “you” and “me”.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/10/15/the-neutrino-parable#comments1Chattering MindRobert WolfeRobert Wolferelative, material world. The body needs to be fed, sheltered, and so on. As a consequence, on the physical level, we have to relate to the practical realities. You could be the saint most idealized, and yet this would still [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/09/05/chattering-mind
Mon, 05 Sep 2011 21:39:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/09/05/chattering-mindrelative, material world. The body needs to be fed, sheltered, and so on. As a consequence, on the physical level, we have to relate to the practical realities. You could be the saint most idealized, and yet this would still be the case.

So, on this level, Julie, the "me" does not disappear: the awakened person still answers to her name, pays her bills (or doesn't), etc.

Thus, it is not like there is no longer ever a consciousness of being "I"; it is that the awakened person does not lose sense of "who" (or what) this is which is considered to be "I."

Therefore the I-thought will, as you say, continue to appear and disappear in your awareness. But whether conscious of the I-thought or not, there is something which is consistently present. Overlaid on this presence is the conception that I am present. We have been conditioned to this I-centered conception for many decades. Even after Self-realization, this conditioning does not dissipate overnight. However, with the presence of Absolute awareness, the recognition becomes--on the appearance of the I-thought (as isolating identification)--that the actuality is that the essential nature of the "I" is That, the Absolute (or Self, as it is also said).

Secondly. Prior to Self-realization, there is an I, on the one hand, who desires to end "mind chatter," on the other hand (subject/object: duality).

With Absolute awareness, there is observation of the appearance of mind chatter, without concern for whatever is factually present.

Where there is no I with attachment to preferences ("This mind chatter needs to stop"), what becomes of the volume of mind chatter? Dissatisfaction with what is present is what makes up the bulk of it. Much of this dissatisfaction is a consequence of (dualistic) comparisons. If you compare yourself to some presumed saint, this idealized expectation will lead to the dissatisfaction which you called "suffering."

For the awakened, there is neither "self" nor "other": dualistic comparison comes to an end.

Where, in Absolute awareness, there is "not two," preferences (aside from those practical and necessary choices to be made, as in paragraph one) also end: it makes no difference whether there is mind chatter or no chatter.

In other words, where the I is recognized to be a fictitious proposition, all of these other problems will be swept off the table with one profound realization. The I-thought is at the root of the problems.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/09/05/chattering-mind#comments0"Our Father Who Art..."Robert WolfeRobert WolfeGod? Yes or no?"

No. Not in the sense that your question implies. Most everyone who uses that term conceives of a god as an entity, a form.

Yet, at the same time, most persons would say that God is [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/08/24/our-father-who-art
Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:07:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/08/24/our-father-who-artGod? Yes or no?"

No. Not in the sense that your question implies. Most everyone who uses that term conceives of a god as an entity, a form.

Yet, at the same time, most persons would say that God is omnipresent. If so, God would not be a form among other forms, but would be present in the same space in which every other form was present; in other words, would occupy every form (from the inside out).

As such there would be no form which limited It, or contained it; It would be beyond, or transcendent of, any form. Unlimited by any constraint of form, it would not itself be an entity.

The nondual teachings, therefore, call it form-less; also Absolute, which means "not limited."

"Does it exist or not exist, then?"

For those who suppose that God is an entity, they would then of course posit that this God has existence. The nondual teachings speak of the Absolute as neither existent nor non-existent. That which is omnipresent, in other words is not finite, does not come into existence (as a form) or go out of existence. From another view, being without limitation, It would be non-existent as well as existent.

As the Vedas suggest, if the question was (instead of God) "Does the Absolute exist?," the sage would have no argument with those who maintain no; yes; both; or neither.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/08/24/our-father-who-art#comments0Belief and JudgementRobert WolfeRobert Wolfe"I'm in a sorting-out phase. The cost of wisdom is everything you think you knew. Ignorance is the cause of all suffering. Belief systems are created to either explain or decrease one's level of suffering. Yet the belief system can produce even greater suffering [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/08/22/belief-and-judgement
Mon, 22 Aug 2011 09:26:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/08/22/belief-and-judgement"I'm in a sorting-out phase. The cost of wisdom is everything you think you knew. Ignorance is the cause of all suffering. Belief systems are created to either explain or decrease one's level of suffering. Yet the belief system can produce even greater suffering still. My own chosen belief system, of these past twelve years, has not worked at all. In fact, it has never decreased my suffering, but rather has given me expectations that have only served to increase it.

"The Course was just a furtherance of a belief system. I now recognize my own incredibly painful comfort zone, from which I refused to budge, and that was one where spirituality as loftyaspirations would make a 'difference.'

"The goal should have been to see it the way it was, or is, and not the way I would have liked it. Ideology is insane: the world does not want or need to be 'fixed.' It just is what it is. So, now, I just let it be what it is. The best thing we can do for anyone is to wake up ourself! The seemingly profound questions have never been answered by me: What am I doing here? Who--or what--am I? Change what, for what? Is it really about 'nothing'?

"All the remains to be seen is that there is nothing that needs to be seen. What there is to see is that there is nothing to see. There's been lots more to write about, but no interest on my part."

Idealistic propositions, even when (or maybe particularly when) "spiritual," or religious, always involve expectations--especially concerning changing "others," as a preferred alternative to awakening ourself. Expectations (certainly regarding changing others, or the world) are bound to lead to disappointment, and increased dissatisfaction.

Sometimes, dis illusion ment can be the catalyst for attending to 'what is' in actuality, rather than what could be or should be.

You have long been concerned with "judgement" and "forgiveness." Obviously, forgiveness is not needed where judgement is absent. When you relinquish your belief as to how things should be, where is the need for judgement? Where judgement is inactive, what need is there for changing others? With no concern for changing others, what then of the reality of peace?

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/08/22/belief-and-judgement#comments0Viewing the WorldRobert WolfeRobert WolfeQ: "If the world depends on you, and you die, and it thus ceases to exist, does it have any reality in any substantial sense? No.

One might say, 'But if I die, it is still an actuality for others.' No. It is still an unreality, in that it depends on the perceiver or sensor. If a plague killed every thing on earth, who or what [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/08/14/viewing-the-world
Sun, 14 Aug 2011 22:04:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/08/14/viewing-the-worldQ: "If the world depends on you, and you die, and it thus ceases to exist, does it have any reality in any substantial sense? No.

One might say, 'But if I die, it is still an actuality for others.' No. It is still an unreality, in that it depends on the perceiver or sensor. If a plague killed every thing on earth, who or what would there be to say that there was a world in any respect?" [from "Present Right Now," p. 187, Living Nonduality]

Can [you] elaborate on that, please? I'd appreciate it if you could explain why it wouldn't exist even if there was no one there to perceive it?

A: The word nothing actually means "no thing; nonexistent; void of meaning." A thing is "an entity, distinguishable from all others." What creates the difference between one thing and another thing is the definition which we have assigned to each: "it is this, because it is not that." We conclude that each defined thing, having a "meaning," exists; a separate form, construction, concept or entity thus distinguishable from other things which we deem to exist. It is by this conscious intellectual process that each thing is invested with reality by us. (In fact, the word real is derivative of the Latin word res, which means "thing.")

We have a word that defines "the totality of all things that exist": universe. In other words, all of the things which we can cognitively define is what comprises the universe. Although our world is not separate from the universe, we have an exclusive distinction for it: this particular planet and every thing that accompanies it. So, the universe, world and all else "exist" as such because our cognized locutions have defined their "reality."

If our defining minds had never made their appearance, what could be said to be real? Well, no thing. Without at least one capable mind to define what is "real," existent, as contrasted to what is "unreal," or nonexistent, such designations as real or unreal have no relevance when applied to the universe (or anything it contains). In fact, the universe does not exist itself as any conceivable thing, in the absence of a mind to specially identify it.

So, from this standpoint, the world is not real, no matter how many minds conceive it to be so. The world is dependent upon our conception of it. No one to determine so, no "world" that "exists."

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/08/14/viewing-the-world#comments0I-dentityRobert WolfeRobert WolfeThe I which is observed and the I which observes it are not separate entities. Every (person's) observed I is unique. The I which observes it is [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/08/09/i-dentity
Tue, 09 Aug 2011 22:36:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/08/09/i-dentityThe I which is observed and the I which observes it are not separate entities. Every (person's) observed I is unique. The I which observes it is common to every "I"; it is not unique. This I which perceives is not bounded, though it sees through each particular set of eyes.

The I-thought which appears in consciousness can be viewed, when it appears, as a "problem." But to the ever-present I which is aware of the I-thought, there is no preference for what appears on the screen of consciousness: the I-thought; not-I thought; no thought; any thought.

Whatever appears, to this I of awareness (or awareness of I), it observes it without critiquing it.

The observed "I" is merely an appearance in consciousness, superimposed on the omnipresent awareness. Ramana would call the former self, the latter Self: one, an appearance limited to a temporary form; the other aspect, an unbounded, universal presence--the essence ("essential to") of the former.

When you've come to recognize who ultimately "I" am, then your sense of "identity" will cease to be fixated on the appearance of I and will simply rest unconcerned in the awareness of all that appears. Ramana would say you abide as the Self. As the Self, all thoughts are "your" thoughts: no problem with maverick thoughts.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/08/09/i-dentity#comments1Nothing Gained, Nothing LostRobert WolfeRobert WolfeQ: Hi Robert! Thanks for answering my question [see post "The Absolute and I"]. I appreciate that very much. I totally get the logic of it. And have seen the truth of it also. But then, later, maybe hours or days later, there is a shift back into that no longer being my experience. Duality re-presents again. There is me, obviously directly [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/08/07/nothing-gained-nothing-lost
Sun, 07 Aug 2011 22:59:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/08/07/nothing-gained-nothing-lostQ: Hi Robert! Thanks for answering my question [see post "The Absolute and I"]. I appreciate that very much. I totally get the logic of it. And have seen the truth of it also. But then, later, maybe hours or days later, there is a shift back into that no longer being my experience. Duality re-presents again. There is me, obviously directly experiencing 'me' to be much more than some socially defined identity - that is experienced to be true - but to then make the experiential shift back again to the place where my direct experience is non-duality, where I recognise the truth of what has always been and remains to be true even now, while it is not my experience - not directly realised moment to moment - that is my challenge. The logic is there, the past experience is there, but the present experience is one of subtle grasping, suffering and incompleteness. And yet I know that I am the absolute and utterly complete. There remains that disconnect, however subtle, that is an apparent barrier to recognising here and now, all that I am. You sat in a caravan for three years and at some point recognised our true nature. Before there was no 'recognition', now there is. And yet you were always the absolute regardless. What changed for you? How did it happen? Is it replicable? In the Dzogchen tradition there is the pointing out of the nature of mind from master to student. And recognition often takes place for a greater or lesser amount of time. However, it is suggested that most students then lose it, due to habit patterns of dualistic grasping, and meditation is the key to stablising the recognition; not the reality of it or the truth, which is naturally always present but not recognised, unfortunately.

A: One of the most common matters raised for teachers of nonduality is the one in your query. It represents a difficulty in grasping the fundamental thrust of the teachings.

What is the essence of the nondual teachings?: there are not two actual things. "All that is, is That"--the singular, absolute, ultimate Reality. There are not two states of existence, which come and go independently of the overarching Reality.

You have a preference for what state is present in consciousness. When the state which you deem preferable appears to be present, you say "I am in the (awakened) zone." When an alternate state of awareness is noticed, you determine "I am not now in the (awakened) zone." Is it not obvious that such a conception is the crux of dualistic thinking? Do you suppose an enlightened sage concerns herself with whatever state of awareness happens to be observed? To the jnani, there are "not two"; all that is, is That. to the ajnani, there is "this state" of awareness and "that state" of awareness--or more.

The jnani has no conception of having acquired anything--nothing has been added to what she always already has: therefore, not anything is ever lost. "Gee whiz, I was one with ultimate Reality awhile ago. Now I'm not.": if she were to say that, she would not have truly recognized her inseparability from ultimate Reality, at any time.

The subtlety of these teachings is that even when what appears to be a lack of "awareness" is what is present, that too is the ultimate Reality in its ever-present form. When the "non-me" awareness is noticed, that is It; when the "me" awareness is noticed, that is It. Every apparent "difference" is a manifestation of That.

Your present condition--whatever and whenever it is--is the condition of the ultimate Reality that the "seeker" would be in touch with. The seeker is the sought, and vice versa.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/08/07/nothing-gained-nothing-lost#comments0The Absolute and IRobert WolfeRobert WolfeQ: Given your non-dual realisation, can you identify what was the essential factor, method or practice that allowed you to notice or realise your natural, non-dual state of being or realisation in a permanent way? Does remaining in non-dual awareness, for you, require effort, or is it effortlessly spontaneous? I have practiced meditation [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/08/04/the-absolute-and-i
Thu, 04 Aug 2011 16:05:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/08/04/the-absolute-and-iQ: Given your non-dual realisation, can you identify what was the essential factor, method or practice that allowed you to notice or realise your natural, non-dual state of being or realisation in a permanent way? Does remaining in non-dual awareness, for you, require effort, or is it effortlessly spontaneous? I have practiced meditation and studied in many traditions for many years. I have made good progress, with many non-dual realisations through time. However, I have not been able to realise my essential nature in a permanent, stable manner. Buddhist meditation is my main practice, however, I am very interested to [know] how I can permanently realise Self with instruction from any and all traditions and those who are awake. How to do this?

A: Of the many dozens of persons I've had one-on-one discussions with, your questions are typical. And the vast majority, like you (and I), were seekers for decades and had practiced meditation.

Most everyone who has any kind of a "practice" supposes that if they practice correctly and diligently, they will as some future time experience the Absolute presence.

Every spiritual or religious tradition asserts that the Absolute is omnipresent. Therefore, it must be here (whenever you are). The notion that sustains your practice can only lead your attention away from the Absolute presence.

If the Absolute is truly omnipresent, as the enlightened sages maintain, there is no way in which you can possibly be apart from that which is always everywhere. We do not come to "encounter" the Absolute, as if "I" and "It" are suddenly to become co-joined (despite the fact that this is your assumption). We can only recognize that the Absolute presence which we seek is utterly inescapable.

As long as you think of "I" on the one hand (a separate form) and the Absolute presence on the other hand (a form which the seeker is apart from), there will be separation. Transcend your conceptions of "this" and "that"--dualistic subject/object perception--and what remains is the non-dual awareness that is being sought.

Do not expect that Self-realization, or awakening, will be a "dramatic event." (When you awaken from sleep in the morning, it is not a dramatic event.) Phenomenal conditions or experiences come and go; what you are seeking is undramatically always ever present--it is not a "special experience."

Lastly, because Absolute presence is always ever present, abiding in awareness of it is effortless. We exert effort when we hope to gain something; you cannot gain something which you have, in actuality, never been apart from.

So, as long as you continue in the mode of "practice," you may have further "insights." But complete nondual clarity is not a matter of periodic "glimpses," it is a matter of seeing, once and for all, to the bottom of the (bottomless) well. Seeking ends, and "insights" are superfluous, because you recognize that "I" and Absolute presence are merely two ways of saying the same thing.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/08/04/the-absolute-and-i#comments0Getting to know Ramana:Robert WolfeRobert WolfeBe As You Are: The Teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi (Penguin paperback). Don't skip the Introduction. Its 244 pages include a glossary and index. A good place to start.

The late Arthur Osborne was a Western student of Ramana, and edited The [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/07/22/getting-to-know-ramana
Fri, 22 Jul 2011 15:19:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/07/22/getting-to-know-ramanaBe As You Are: The Teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi (Penguin paperback). Don't skip the Introduction. Its 244 pages include a glossary and index. A good place to start.

The late Arthur Osborne was a Western student of Ramana, and edited The Collected Works of Ramana Maharshi (Weiser Books paperback). Not a lot was written by Ramana himself, and Osborne explains much about what was. Again, don't skip the Preface. The 192 pages include glossary and index. Ramana wrote in Tamil, and many references are to Vedanta.

These are good preparation for Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi,* some 650 brief, transcribed questions-and-answers on many topics (with students or with visitors) over about four years (late 30s). 683 pages, hardbound, with extensive glossary and index, it is best read with the above preparation. A thorough Bibliography, at the back, will lead you to choices of the many other books, of many sorts, to follow with.

The three-volume (paperback) series The Power of the Presence, compiled by David Godman, is a collection of about thirty reminiscences by various devotees of Ramana Maharshi, over a period of about fifty years.†

In a marginal way, it is a testimony to the Indians' generosity to the needy, their endurance of discomfort, their devoted service to a teacher, and their obsession with having--or wanting to have--phenomenal religious experiences (which, when they do have them, they seem to learn little from).

This (latter) is despite their guru Ramana's teachings: "What is perceived by our senses and the mind is never the truth. All 'visions' are mere mental creations. And if you believe in them, your progress ceases!

"Enquire to whom the (experiences) occur. Find out who is their witness....Don't move out of that state."

But the volumes are more directly a discovery of the aspects of Ramana's presence which one might not expect--such as the times when he chastises, cajoles or cries. There are dozens of such examples.

---------------------------* The major source for his direct teachings.† Available from Avadhuta Foundation, 1-877-282-3488; www.avadhuta.com.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/07/22/getting-to-know-ramana#comments2Five-Word KeyRobert WolfeRobert WolfeAs Krishnamurti put it, “Where there is division, there is conflict.” (Sometimes he also said it this way: “Where there is conflict, there is division.”)

At the time that I read this, I was examining the conflict in my [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/07/15/five-word-key
Fri, 15 Jul 2011 18:44:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/07/15/five-word-keyAs Krishnamurti put it, “Where there is division, there is conflict.” (Sometimes he also said it this way: “Where there is conflict, there is division.”)

At the time that I read this, I was examining the conflict in my life. Everywhere that I could identify conflict, I could see that some sort of divisiveness was involved.

Conversely, by being aware of the divisive nature of the thought process itself (“This is good. This is not good.”), I could see where conflict arose (“I am a good person. You are a bad person.”).

It became obvious to me that if I was to end conflict in my life, division (divisiveness) must end. I began to ask myself (almost as an on-going meditation), “What would it mean if there was no division?”; that is, if in fact the actuality of our existence was that there was no such condition as division.

I could see how the thought process created duality. The thought that “I exist”—as a “me”, a self as a separate entity—is inevitably followed by the thought that “All else, that exists in the world, is not me.” “You”, for example, are not me. So, there is “me” as opposed to “you”; there is my self and your self—a latent premise for eventual conflict.

So, if the separative dualistic notion is the basis of conflict, how could the separative perspective be transcended? According to the “spiritual” material that I was reading at the time, by non duality.

What I thought this meant, at the time, was “union”, or unity. If I think of “you” and “I” as “one” (or “God” and “I” as “One”), doesn’t this end separation? No; because it’s divisible. 1+1=2; but 2 is merely a “union” of 1+1: 2 is always convertible back to the separation of 1+1.

The Sanskrit word for nondual, I learned, is advaita (dating back 3,500 years to the Vedas): its literal meaning, “not two”. In fact, the Vedas go on to explain that the deepest teaching of nonduality is: “not two; not one”. In other words, the 2 here is not a reality; nor is the 1+1 that comprise the 2.

Pondering the message of Vedanta, it became apparent that “union” (two) is not the intended condition to be realized: not two; not “unity”.

What, then? “One”? No: “not one”. Where there is a one, a separate entity (such as “me”), there is always the implication that something exists beside (or, outside of) that one (such as “you”; or, “not me”).

The teaching is saying that not one exists as a reality (therefore, ‘two’ neither; because there are no ‘ones’ to comprise the ‘two’). The pointer “not two, not one” is saying that there is not any thing which exists—at all—as a separate, independent entity!

Wow, I realized, this is what “no division” really means: not that there is no separation between “you” and “me”, but that “you” and “me” are merely separative distinctions; “you” and “me” do not exist except as definitional ideas.

Therefore, “unity” plays no part in the enlightened realization of the truth of nonduality; there is—where division is not presumed from the beginning—not a one and another one, to be connected as a two.

It also became clear that “not one” means that there is not even some thing or entity or form that replaces “you” and “me”; that would simply be a subtle substitution. For example, if we say that “you” and “me” are the “Father”, we are merely establishing another “independent” one.

Where there is no division, no thing exists; form-less-ness. What is formless is clearly indivisible. I came to understand what Buddhists refer to as the Void; nothing-ness.

It is out of this nothingness (“not even one”) that the appearance of “separate” entities—ones—arise. Though these “ones” appear, they appear from (rather, in) the condition of no division, nonduality. Having their origination in the nondual, they never were separate, or apart, from their beginning. Thus, they need not be artificially “unified”.

What is the consequence of the realization of the actuality called nonduality? It is the disappearance of the idea of being a separate “self ”; or, more yet, their being any separate “selves”—“yours” or “mine”.

So, the key is now held: “there cannot be any separation”. Any!

Contemplate what this means. The teachings (all) tell us that the actuality of our existence is that there is no division whatsoever any where at any time. And that the awakening to the significance of this truth is the long-sought ending of conflict and confusion.

It is also the ending of seeming identity of a “you” and a “me” (or any “others”). Therefore, it is also the end of the search for “unity”, since there is no disunity in the formless actuality, to begin with.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/07/15/five-word-key#comments2Great Expectations?Robert WolfeRobert WolfeAs a consequence of what one can find in much of the spiritual material, there is sometimes an exaggerated expectation as to how life will "look" after [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/07/06/great-expectations
Wed, 06 Jul 2011 21:48:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/07/06/great-expectationsAs a consequence of what one can find in much of the spiritual material, there is sometimes an exaggerated expectation as to how life will "look" after Self-realization.

Twenty, thirty, forty or more years of (dualistic) societal conditioning does not necessarily disappear overnight. There are some acquired habits, especially, which may not be amenable to much change at all.

The significant change that does relate to Self-realization is the relinquishing of the tendency to hope that the real facts of life will be something other than what they resolutely are.

For those who are viewing life from a dualistic framework, there will be an effort to move away from what is perceived as negative (or un-pleasant) and to move toward the positive end of the spectrum (whatever is deemed pleasant). The teachings of nonduality assure us that it is possible to transcend such dualistic distinctions, in our general perception, as "better" or "worse." In other words, we view matters in terms of 'what is,' rather than how they could be or should be.

Therefore, in the wake of Self-realization, the world (good, bad or mediocre) has not changed; but one's perspective, concerning all that one is aware of, has changed. Put another way, the world looks no different than it ever has--but our expectation, that it ought to appear any way other than it does, is recognized to be at the root of suffering and conflict.

So, we're not talking about the elimination of worldly reality, but of accordance with all of actuality; not exclusion, but inclusion.

This would be expressed by the nondual rishis as "Being present with what's present"--as contrasted to what one wishes or hopes was instead present.

As to "the dissolution of the ego," the "ego" is one of the dualistic ideas we have been enculturated to conceive as having substance. (Try to find an "ego" before Freud was born.) Ego is Latin: it means (in English) I. Is there an ego apart from an I? Ramana would put it this way: The ego is as real as the self. If there is no such separate entity as a "self," what becomes of the ego?

The notion of an ego is the scapegoat for a person's (mainly "undesirable") behavior. What role can an "ego" play for a person who no longer critiques her behavior in terms of "better" or "worse"? When you recognize your behavioral expressions to be 'what is'--factual in occurrance, rather than some would-be ideal--you will experience them as you would experience any other element of the 'what is.' This, then, is effectually the dissolution of the ego.

The fundamental question is, what is your "real nature"? If you "reject the conventional view of the separation of objects," is there a "you", a "self", that is in actuality apart from all else that is? If you comprehend that ultimately "everything is the Absolute," is there an "I" which is separate from anything?

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/07/06/great-expectations#comments2Admit OneRobert WolfeRobert WolfeThis applies not only to what we can witness externally in the world, it applies equally in regard to [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/06/28/admit-one
Tue, 28 Jun 2011 17:23:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/06/28/admit-oneThis applies not only to what we can witness externally in the world, it applies equally in regard to our inner turmoil and confusion, even to the choices we ponder.

The nondual teachings instruct us that if conflict is to end--inner or outer--divisiveness must come to an end. Put another way, as long as we remain in (separative) confusion, everything which we attempt to do will be a product of that confusion. But once (awakened) clarity is present, all that we do will be a product of that clarity. So it is important, in the balance of our life, for Self-realization to be at the top of the agenda.

A second fundamental element, of the teachings, is this: the Truth that you'll discover is the same Truth that is present this very moment. There is not anything in the future that will bring you closer to the prospect of this Truth than you are right now. You need not transit in time, in order to end the dualistic confusion.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/06/28/admit-one#comments0When in Doubt...Robert WolfeRobert WolfeI am reminded of the words of Ramana: "The jnani (self-realized) has no doubts (about) himself....He has no doubts, to be cleared....

"So long as false identification persists, doubts will persist...Doubts will cease [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/06/21/when-in-doubt
Tue, 21 Jun 2011 13:52:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/06/21/when-in-doubtI am reminded of the words of Ramana: "The jnani (self-realized) has no doubts (about) himself....He has no doubts, to be cleared....

"So long as false identification persists, doubts will persist...Doubts will cease only when the (individuated identification) is put an end to. That will result in realization of Reality. There will remain no 'other' to doubt."

Even though Self-realization is not fully present (and your conclusion that this is so, is an indication that it is so), "Lori" has had a "glimpse" of something which has already effected noticeable changes. So, it is not a matter of self-deception here.

But the decisive factor is, as Ramana says, "So long as false identification persists..." The glimpse, as you say, was of Oneness. Yet, in this case, false identification persists: there is a "person" who has had an "experience"--this is a dualistic conception, not Oneness.

There also remains a person who has definite ideas about how that experience should be developing for that person. The person concerned is the "subject" end, of subject/object duality.

Full self-realization leaves no doubt about the actuality of Oneness, of nonduality. And in Self-realization the subject/object polarization is transcended, so that the false identification of the subject self and objective "other" (material, or immaterial such as "special" experiences) no longer engenders separation, or what amounts to the denial of Oneness.

The dualistic self-identity leads to separation in our lives, and this separation can be a catalyst for full self-realization. The glimpse of Oneness (Christian mystics call it grace) can be a revelation that the condition of the jnani is realizable. "Person," "experiences," and "expectations" will be seen as empty of meaning when Self-realization is completely profound.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/06/21/when-in-doubt#comments0Keeping It SimpleRobert WolfeRobert WolfeThey had no refrigeration, no stoves, no matches (though they knew how to start a fire). They had no frozen, canned, packaged or [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/06/13/keeping-it-simple
Mon, 13 Jun 2011 22:01:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/06/13/keeping-it-simpleThey had no refrigeration, no stoves, no matches (though they knew how to start a fire). They had no frozen, canned, packaged or “convenience” foods. No garden vegetables or orchard fruit, no livestock or poultry, no milk or dairy products, no candy, pastry or soft drinks. When available, they had fish and game (broiled, boiled, smoked or dried), herbs, tubers, nuts, seeds, berries, acorn bread, herb tea, water and sometimes salt.

They had no alcohol, no stimulants (coffee, tea, cocoa, etc.), no recreational drugs; occasionally tobacco, when bartered from the far south.

No horse, wheeled vehicle, skateboard or pavement. No tent, canteen, compass, hatchet or bear-free campsite. No metal tools, no hardware. No gun, fishhook or steel trap.

No electric light, no flashlight, no electric blanket, answer phone, clock or calendar.

No organized sciences, technologies, professions, industries, commerce, institutions, judicial system or political parties.

And with all of that which they didn’t have, these were not a restless, disturbed, aggressive, disease-ridden people.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/06/13/keeping-it-simple#comments0The NamelessRobert WolfeRobert WolfeYou say that when aware of peace and joy, that is when your true nature is a reality. And you say that when you "have given credence to a separate me, the I-thought" (and you notice the "suffering" which is consequent), there is [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/06/01/the-nameless
Wed, 01 Jun 2011 08:53:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/06/01/the-namelessYou say that when aware of peace and joy, that is when your true nature is a reality. And you say that when you "have given credence to a separate me, the I-thought" (and you notice the "suffering" which is consequent), there is the "believing in a false reality....I have left my true nature...and need to reestablish my orientation to it."

Both perceived states--joy and suffering--are basically a false reality, in terms of Absolute awareness. The "I," of perceived positive/negative experience, is a feature of both (opposing) states.

To begin with, "joy" and "suffering" are among the myriad (dualistic) names that we have overlaid on 'what is'--on whatever happens to be a present condition. Both are ideas, or concepts, about some manner in which the Absolute is appearing. The Absolute itself has no notions of "positive" interpretations versus "negative" interpretations. It is the "I" which generates interpretations.

Your true nature is in transcendence of the dualistic (I/not-I) self-conception. As such, there is not concern for whether I experience "joy," or I experience "suffering." Whatever is being experienced will be experienced with equanimity. Put another way, the 'what is' (that is "you") is merely aware of the 'what is' (whatever happens to be present), without qualification.

Your "true nature" is another name for the ultimate Reality which none of us can ever be apart from. Therefore, you cannot "leave your true nature," nor can you "reestablish it." (You never established it to begin with.)

If you are equating "joy" with the "bliss" of which Ramana speaks, I submit that bliss is another word for the equanimity which is the characteristic of our true nature--in transcendence of both "positive" (joy) and "negative" (suffering) polarized (dualistic) conceptions. It is being at one with 'what is,' without a need to name, to evaluate, it.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/06/01/the-nameless#comments0Lost and Found DepartmentRobert WolfeRobert WolfeThis sounds as if (experienced, in the past tense) “the realization,” that you speak of, is a state which comes and goes—thus a repetitive process to subsequently re-instate it.

To use an analogy, [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/05/23/lost-and-found-department
Mon, 23 May 2011 11:33:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/05/23/lost-and-found-departmentThis sounds as if (experienced, in the past tense) “the realization,” that you speak of, is a state which comes and goes—thus a repetitive process to subsequently re-instate it.

To use an analogy, if one goes from the state of being asleep, to the state of being awake, the awake state changes if one goes back to sleep. In other words, when one remains awake, there is no technique necessary to regularly re-awaken.

The condition of Absolute awareness, when thoroughly present, will not come and go. It is recognized that not anything has been “gained,” or added, which had not already been existent (though unrecognized). Therefore, there is not something (such as a state) which is subject to “loss,” or lack of presence.

No technique, in other words, can reinstate (get “there” from not-there) that which, by its definitional nature, is omnipresent—eternal and infinite.

So, to the extent that one experiences a “loss” of the “state” of “realization,” that is not the timeless, unwavering Realization that I am familiar with.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/05/23/lost-and-found-department#comments1Guru RelationshipRobert WolfeRobert WolfeQ: If I am not a disciple who wants something spiritual or material from you, because I have no such separative feeling or need, what is your/guru's relationship with me? Or relationship is only when one or both of us have a need, to receive or even to give? Is there an altogether different relationship, beyond needs?

A: [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/05/20/guru-relationship
Fri, 20 May 2011 09:03:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/05/20/guru-relationshipQ: If I am not a disciple who wants something spiritual or material from you, because I have no such separative feeling or need, what is your/guru's relationship with me? Or relationship is only when one or both of us have a need, to receive or even to give? Is there an altogether different relationship, beyond needs?

A: From the relative standpoint, the standpoint of the seeker, there is a spiritual teacher who knows (or is aware of) something which she wishes to know.

From the standpoint of an enlightened teacher, there is this "person" (or organism) in communication (or "communion," stressing union) with an-other person. Viewing his own person as That, he regards the other person as That, indivisibly. From his standpoint, That is merely conversing (or interacting) with That. Under those circumstances, he does not think in terms of "relationship." Relationship is the viewpoint of the seeker: the disciple/guru presumption.

From the teacher's standpoint, That (as he) is aware of its true nature, while That (as she) professes not to be aware of its true nature. Aspects, or manifestations, of That (Absolute actuality) are interacting, as a jetstream of water may interact in a sea of water. The outcome of the interaction does not matter: whatever the outcome (if any), it is That doing what it does.

What it is doing in one entity is asking a question. What it is doing in the other entity is suggesting a resolution of the question.

The seeker is proposing that there is an "I" apart from the "guru." The guru is reiterating that the "I" and the "you," in ultimate reality, are the same, omnipresent essence.

When it is recognized (if it is) that you and I are an unbrioken whole--along with all other things--it is clear that, from the Absolute perspective, there are no relationships that exist.

The disciple already embodies this no-relationship condition. There is not, therefore, a condition which the guru embodies which the disciple does not. This is all that the guru can profess to "transmit," and the disciple admit to "realize."

The disciple/guru never really had a relationship, and mutually acknowledge that they never will--in fact that they never really existed as separate realities.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/05/20/guru-relationship#comments0Listen to Robert's Latest InterviewRobert WolfeRobert Wolfehttp://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/05/17/listen-to-roberts-latest-interview
Tue, 17 May 2011 15:19:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/05/17/listen-to-roberts-latest-interview]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/05/17/listen-to-roberts-latest-interview#comments0BiggiesRobert WolfeRobert WolfeQ: Does this mean that just the Understanding or recognition of the truth of nonduality IS the dissolution of conflict? My gut says yes (however when I'm in traffic I still see 'others' and experience the vestiges of conflict!) The disassembly of the I-thought into its source IS the recognition of the truth of non-duality is it not? Is this [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/05/16/biggies
Mon, 16 May 2011 09:36:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/05/16/biggiesQ: Does this mean that just the Understanding or recognition of the truth of nonduality IS the dissolution of conflict? My gut says yes (however when I'm in traffic I still see 'others' and experience the vestiges of conflict!) The disassembly of the I-thought into its source IS the recognition of the truth of non-duality is it not? Is this disassembly a process (i.e., time-oriented)? I realize that some people experience a radical disassembly of the I-thought, i.e., Ramana, but I've heard that for others it's a more gradual process (a dissolving if you will vs. an explosive eradication).

A: Yours are big questions. I'll try to be succinct. "The truth of nonduality" is, in two words, no division. As Krishnamurti often said, "Where there is division, there is conflict." Therefore, for conflict to come to an end, (the sense of) division must come to an end.

One could coin a phrase: no conflict with conflict. In other words, in our day-to-day relative existence, various forms of agitation or disagreement may continue to arise--but without that being a "problem," without making a conflict out of that.

"The disassembly of the I-thought into its source" results in awareness of the true identity of the Doer: That thou art. Therefore, whatever is being done (in terms of human activity, individually or collectively) is That doing what it does. So, yes, that is a "recognition of the truth of nonduality," when perceived.

Generally speaking, the recognition of one's true nature is an immediate comprehension. But this radical shift in perspective may take awhile to get acclimated, or adjusted, to. This could equate to the "process" of "dissolving" which you mention.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/05/16/biggies#comments0What's To Do?Robert WolfeRobert WolfeQ: I'm trying to figure something out. I keep reading in the Advaita literature that there is no "doer", but then I also read suggestions as to what to do. Isn't that a contradication?

A: If (as the sutras say) there is no doer, then understanding those words would mean to answer the question, "Then what is doing the [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/05/10/whats-to-do
Tue, 10 May 2011 21:08:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/05/10/whats-to-doQ: I'm trying to figure something out. I keep reading in the Advaita literature that there is no "doer", but then I also read suggestions as to what to do. Isn't that a contradication?

A: If (as the sutras say) there is no doer, then understanding those words would mean to answer the question, "Then what is doing the activity that appears to be done?"

So, the summary of all the "suggestions as to what to do" is this: discover "who" (really, what) is the ultimate source of whatever it is that's being done. Would what you're doing, right now, have any connection to what the galaxies are doing in the cosmos, or to what the subatomic particles are doing in that rock over there?

What is the primal source of the "individual" who asks questions about the primal source?

When the primary Doer has been recognized as the wellspring of all that's (ever) being done, you will know the source of "your" activities. And your question as to what the "individual" ought to do will be answered.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/05/10/whats-to-do#comments3Choices/ConflictRobert WolfeRobert WolfeQ: This statement particularly resonates: "Stillness, utter stillness, is the antidote to the compulsion of volition, to the bondage of chronic activity." I would like to request further explanation of the following quote however: "But the dissolution of conflict is to see choice through to its ending, to be unequivocally consistent in [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/05/10/choicesconflict
Tue, 10 May 2011 20:46:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/05/10/choicesconflictQ: This statement particularly resonates: "Stillness, utter stillness, is the antidote to the compulsion of volition, to the bondage of chronic activity." I would like to request further explanation of the following quote however: "But the dissolution of conflict is to see choice through to its ending, to be unequivocally consistent in one’s interpretation of truth." I see this to mean that the dissolution of conflict is the realization that choice is truly fallacy.

A: Thanks for your comments!

Your interpretation is correct. We make comparisons: "this" (better) as opposed to "that" (worse), and desires then arise ("I want to retain this, and eliminate that."). Where choices are made, a relative (or dualistic) situation is being engaged. Where there is a sense of division--as in attachment to the outcome of a particular choice--there will be conflict.

The fundamental seat of conflict is embodied in the "I" as opposed to "not-I" perspective. Where the sense of being an individual, separate, "I" prevails, there will be conflict.

The dissolution of such conflict comes in recognizing the truth which nonduality suggests. The I-thought can disassemble into the source of its Being. Then the outcome of any choice, being made by this particular manifestation of the Source of all activity (this "person"), is seen to ultimately make no difference. "Clinging" to (the importance of) choices ceases. One observes the choices that are being made, and their outcome, without concern, without feelings of conflict.

This is what is called "choiceless awareness."

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/05/10/choicesconflict#comments1The Sage and IllnessRobert WolfeRobert WolfeAs Ramana says, all of the relative forms are impermanent. There is only one thing which does not come and go, which is permanent, and that is the ground of Being, or Source. He says, "Keep attention [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/05/05/the-sage-and-illness
Thu, 05 May 2011 16:16:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/05/05/the-sage-and-illnessAs Ramana says, all of the relative forms are impermanent. There is only one thing which does not come and go, which is permanent, and that is the ground of Being, or Source. He says, "Keep attention focused on what is real, what does not come and go, not on what is unreal" (that is, impermanent).

The human body is impermanent. What it (and the entire cosmos) owes its existence to is, as the sutras say, "unchanging," ever-present. Human forms appear and disappear, in limited time and space, within it; but it does not vary in its presence, and is not limited in time or space.

So, the jnani's (realized's) attention is focused on the ultimate Reality, not the short-lived forms through which this Reality merely makes an appearance. Thus the sutras emphasize, "You are not the body."

In specific terms, the jnani (through choiceless awareness) observes changes which are taking place within the organism (and "all things change"), recognizing that a physical body will necessarily follow the course of arriving, remaining, and departing.

You used the word "illness" (as would most persons), but in the sage's mind what is noticed is "change." Change is inevitable; change which eventually leads to death is emphatically inevitable.

The usual human reaction to change, especially when life-threatening, is resistance. For one to whom the self and the Self are one indivisible whole, where is there a basis for resistance?

In Living Nonduality (p. 224: How They Died), I wrote of the "non-resistance to physical death" of four exemplary spiritual teachers: the concluding line speaks about "non-attachment to life itself," that is, to all that is impermanent.

This is--to use your phrase--how sages "look at it when living nonduality."

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/05/04/sharing-living-nonduality-interview-on-may-10th#comments1The Truth Shall Set YOU FreeRobert WolfeRobert WolfeIf one affirms that “God is all there is”, and that is a truth, then one embodies this truth or else lives in untruth. To those who are sincere, such is more than a rhetorical statement: “All is One.”

If That is [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/05/03/the-truth-shall-set-you-free
Tue, 03 May 2011 14:23:13 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/05/03/the-truth-shall-set-you-freeIf one affirms that “God is all there is”, and that is a truth, then one embodies this truth or else lives in untruth. To those who are sincere, such is more than a rhetorical statement: “All is One.”

If That is all that is, That is all that is real; anything perceived “other” than That is unreal—therefore, not truth.

If That is all there is, there are not two things: there is only That. Therefore, That is an indivisible whole. An indivisible whole is not subject to partition: all is That.

There is, therefore, no God (or That, for that matter) that can stand apart from anything else. This is all That (or God).

There is no “part” of it that is “greater” than any “other” part; there is no separate Entity.

To deny this obvious implication of “God is all there is” is to live in untruth, inconsistency.

The One of which you speak is a one without a two. This Oneness neither “knows” nor “cares”, as a remote knower or carer. There is no separate place in Oneness in which oneness has taken up a distinct location from which to know, care, intervene, intercede, instruct or any other privately definable action. Being in no way relative, it does not stand out somewhere in relationship to the human condition, nor any human in particular.

To affirm truth on one hand and live untruth on the other hand can only lead to confusion and (perceived) suffering.

To live the truth consistently is an end to confusion and suffering.

If God is all that is, “you” are God. If this is not true, God is not all that is.

Which shall you affirm? Which shall you live as the truth?

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/05/03/the-truth-shall-set-you-free#comments0The Needle's EyeRobert WolfeRobert Wolfehttp://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/04/10/the-needles-eye
Sun, 10 Apr 2011 09:48:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/04/10/the-needles-eyeHis first sight of a holy man disturbed the insulated prince, Siddhartha Gautama. Jesus was impressed with Isaiah, Elijah, the baptist John and others. Ramana Maharshi was inflamed, as a youth, by a written account of the lives of saints. Krishnamurti made occasional, admiring references to the Buddha and Jesus; et cetera.

Those whom we each refer to as “holy” were exceedingly uncommon people; that is why few people do not know at least a few details of who St. Francis was or who Mother Teresa was. It is striking, to anyone who diligently reviews the reports, not only how uncommonly these religious figures acted, but how similar their uncommon behavior has been. In other words, one need not investigate these biographical cameos very far before one senses a common “message” (but not even, necessarily, in their message)—in the way they lived their lives.

The most apparent message, which first stands out (whether verbally “preached” or nonverbally demonstrated), is that a profound spiritual awakening radically changes one’s “normal” behavior. Gautama left his fief, never again to resume it. Jesus left his home, never again to have another. Maharshi left everything behind him, except the loin cloth he frequently wore. Krishnamurti renounced his imposed, appointed position. And so on, through biographies which line many shelves.

The dramatic message seems abundantly clear: exposure to profound illumination is exposure to definite risk of radical transformation of one’s material existence or security. The willingness to risk is not separate from the openness to awakening. One who is not willing to take this risk—of possessions, career, family, security, stature, future and past—has encountered the first barrier, the eye of the needle.

The primary barrier to spiritual discovery is fear. Where it cannot be dissolved, it will be impassable. This is elemental.

Specifically, the fear which dominates is that of the future (or, conversely, the fear of not maintaining a future). Fear and any idea of future time are unmistakably wedded. This irremediable relationship has likely been the immediate insight of every saint who has come to the confrontation with risk. Fear is insurmountable, as long as the future gapes around it.

This pivotal recognition propels the adventurer into a seminal contemplation of the alleged property of time. The only prospect for surpassing the limitations of fear is to somehow transcend the bondage of time. And this is precisely what each spiritual discoverer has indicated. Fear does not die in the future, it dies with the future—as the future is laid to rest.

To pierce the heart of the dragon of time is the real function of “sitting quietly, doing nothing”. Stillness, utter stillness, is the antidote to the compulsion of volition, to the bondage of chronic activity. It is to permit one’s future to wither and die of neglect, as alarming as that may seem. A sudden unanticipated (even unintended) lurch, and the chain falls aside. Buddha arises from under the Bo tree, Jesus arrives on the shores of Galilee, Maharshi sits outside the temple, Krishnamurti lights his parting bonfire at the Order of the Star.

Not everyone finds themselves prepared to turn their face toward the immaterial and their back on the material. We each do what we do. But the dissolution of conflict is to see choice through to its ending, to be unequivocally consistent in one’s interpretation of truth. It is only in this way that truth can be interpreted. And only the firmament of truth is worthy of our exploration. In this, too, our mentors concur.

A clergyman in a cathedral, in 1543 Copernicus published a treatise postulating that the sun does not appear to rise and set as a consequence of it revolving around the earth (the latter of which the Church presumed to be the center of the universe); to the contrary, he asserted, the earth revolves around the sun, which is stationary, and it is the earth’s axial rotation which provides the appearance of a rising and setting sun.

Nearly ninety years passed before Galileo’s interest in physics and telescopes resulted in publication (in 1632) of experimental verification of Copernicus’ revelation (followed by Galileo’s trial before Rome’s inquisition the following year).

Like the pre-Copernicans who were without doubt that the earth graced the hub of the universe, most people today still suppose that “cause and effect” is such a truism that it is a physical fact.

This was disproved, now more than 40 years ago!

Most people today would recognize the name of Alexander Graham Bell of the telephone, but not the name of Irish physicist John Stewart Bell. But the latter, in 1964, did for physics as much as Copernicus did for astronomy. And, as recently as 2004, Swiss physicist Nicholas Gisin established the revelation of Bell, as firmly as did Galileo that of Copernicus.

In sum, to quote physicist Nick Herbert:

“Bell’s Theorem* states, in effect, that after two [subatomic] particles interact in a conventional way, then move apart outside the range of the interaction, the particles continue to influence each other instantaneously via a real connection, which joins them together with undiminished strength no matter how far apart they may roam….

“Bell’s Theorem says not merely that superluminal connections are possible, but that they are necessary to make our kind of universe work….

“Bell’s Theorem shows that…things are hooked together by an invisible, underlying network of superluminal connections.”

Another scientist, Steve Hagen, adds:

“Though we conceive of a ‘here’ and a ‘there’, such conception is not supported…by experimental results. The ‘two’ are intimately related, and a change in ‘one’ immediately creates a change in the ‘other’…of the very fabric of time and space itself.”

Physics professor Lee Smolin:

“This means that the entangled nature of the quantum state reflects something essential in the world….This makes it one of those rare cases in which an experiment [such as Gisin demonstrated over 31 miles, likened—given the relative size of particles—to 31 light-yearsacross space] can be interpreted as a test of a philosophical principal [viz., nonduality]….

“We—who live in the universe, and aspire to understand it—are then inextricably part of the same entangled system.”

Physicist Shimon Malin:

“Such a connection takes place because both events [the cosmic interaction by two—or more—particles] form a single creative act, a single ‘actual entity,’ arising out of a common field of potentialities.”

And Henry Stapp:

“The important thing about Bell’s Theorem is that it puts the dilemma posed by quantum phenomena clearly into the realm of macroscopic [“visible”] phenomena…[showing] that our ordinary ideas about the world are somehow profoundly deficient even at the macroscopic level.”

Gary Zukov:

“Bell’s Theorem tells us that there is no such thing as ‘separate parts’. All of the ‘parts’ of the universe are connected in an intimate and immediate way…‘Commonsense’ ideas are inadequate even to describe macroscopic events—events of the everyday world!” [e.g., cause and effect]

Renowned physicist David Bohm:

“We can say that inseparable quantum interconnectedness of the whole universe is the fundamental reality…any attempt to assert the independent existence of a ‘part’ would deny this unbroken wholeness…This form of description cannot be closed on the large scale, any more than on the small scale…. This means that our notions of space and time will have to change in a fundamental way….

“Notion of the constitution of the world out of separately-existent parts is turned upside down....There are indivisible links of action between each object, and its environment.”

This, then, is the physical reality, the actual fact of the universe that we live in.

There is no such actuality—throughout time and space, as we know it—as cause that is apart from effect.

Most people today are basing their assumptions on pre-Bell doctrine; just as most people, before 1543, based their assumptions on pre-Copernicus doctrine.

But in terms of how you live your life, based on the assumptions you are making, the former is more important than the latter.

Will ninety years pass before you incorporate the supportive scientific evidence of what the sages have maintained for some 3,500 years: “You are not the doer”?

*A theorem is not a theory; it's been experimentally proven.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/03/24/youre-not-responsible#comments0Who Says 'That Thou Art?'Robert WolfeRobert Wolfehttp://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/03/13/who-says-that-thou-art
Sun, 13 Mar 2011 16:48:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/03/13/who-says-that-thou-artThe subject of these writings is the ultimate, universal and single underlying reality which is termed Absolute. Such wisdom teachings are referred to as Vedanta, which means “the end of knowledge”; that is, complete ultimate clarity regarding the nature of the Absolute. The Sanskrit word used to convey this sense, or “knowledge”, of the presence (“always already here”) is advaita, which means “not two”: non-dual.

The earliest teacher of advaita, of pronounced historical importance, was Shankara (788-820 A.D.). His yoga (“yoke”, or way) was jnana, “self-knowledge” or Self-awareness: being aware of one’s true nature, or identity. (An enlightened person is known, in Sanskrit, as jnani: an unawakened person as ajnani—a being “not”.) Shankara’s teaching (in Sanskrit) was “tat tvam asi”: That thou art.

The Vedanta advaita teachings of Shankara were basically not different than those of Siddhartha Gautama (563-483 B.C.), the Buddha (Sanskrit for “the awakened”). After six years of ascetic disciplines, the former prince surrendered to “not knowing” and was enlightened at 35, without recourse to a teacher (guru: “who points the way”).

Meanwhile, the teachings of the Tao (“way”, or path) were exemplified in the Tao Te Ching, reputedly written by Lao-Tsu, whose birth is given as around 600 B.C. Taoist emphasis on surrender to “what is” is relevant to the non-separative enlightenment of advaita. China’s teaching successor to Lao-Tsu was considered to be Chuang-Tzu.

When Bodhidharma brought Buddha’s teachings to China in the 5th century A.D., it wedded with the Tao as what we know today as Zen. A major figure in Chinese Zen was Hui-neng (638-713 A.D.), an illiterate woodcutter. He was followed by a lineage of Zen masters, as Zen migrated to Japan in the 14th Century, such as Hakuin. The writings of D.T. Suzuki and Alan Watts have been primary in introducing Zen to the West.

Padmasambhava was the patriarch of Buddhism in Tibet, in the 8th Century. The nondual teachings of Tibetan Buddhism are embodied as Dzochen (zo-chen); also spelled Dzogchen.

Meanwhile, the most enigmatic of Eastern teachers of the nondual presence (who may have been influenced by the earlier, historic teachings), Jesus lived and died. His perspective was at least understood by the German monk Meister Eckhart (1260-1327 A.D.), whose sermons have rarely been translated accurately. The Church regards him as a “mystic”—enlightenment being a forbidden term.

In Islam, the nondual teachings are most readily found in the poetry of Rumi and Hafiz (Persia: 1207-73 A.D. and 1325-90 A.D.); and are categorized as Sufi (rather than Muslim).

The late 1800’s saw the birth of several sages of nondualism of whose words (and existence) we can be confident; such has even been preserved in film and on tape.

Krishnamurti may be the most perplexing of these, but probably none has ever reached a wider audience.

Shankara’s true successor has been Ramana Maharshi. He is primarily the fountainhead of today’s panel of teachers in the West. He is also probably the most direct, due to the profound depth of his awakening.

Among his “lineage” are H.W.L. Poonja, who died in India recently; his American “disciple”, the woman known as Gangaji; and her follower here in Ojai, John Sherman.

A contemporary of Ramana, Nisargadatta lived in India; his primary disciple has been Ramesh Balsekar (also of India).

Today, there are a number of teachers here in the U.S. which are sharing a common message of nonduality, such as: Francis Lucille, Satyam Nadeen, Steven Harrison, Eckhart Tolle, Adyashanti, and Toni Packer (and in England, Tony Parsons)—to name a few.

The sources—old and new—are readily available…plentifully!

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/03/13/who-says-that-thou-art#comments1Tiger by the TailRobert WolfeRobert WolfeTiger by the Tail [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/03/01/tiger-by-the-tail
Tue, 01 Mar 2011 13:39:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/03/01/tiger-by-the-tailTiger by the Tail

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/03/01/tiger-by-the-tail#comments0Looking Anew: The Gospel of ThomasRobert WolfeRobert WolfeThe Gospel of Thomas: The Enlightenment Teachings of Jesus]

Throughout history, spiritual traditions of all kinds have [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/02/21/looking-anew-the-gospel-of-thomas
Mon, 21 Feb 2011 18:01:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/02/21/looking-anew-the-gospel-of-thomasThe Gospel of Thomas: The Enlightenment Teachings of Jesus]

Throughout history, spiritual traditions of all kinds have employed certain designations in common: principal among these are the words “relative” and “absolute.” The meanings which these words represent are fundamental to the comprehension of the spiritual message. To understand the second of these two words, one must clearly understand the implications of the first word.

That which is relative, according to a dictionary definition, “depends for its identity on some other thing,” and therefore is--as a limited form--“not absolute.” (A discussion of “absolute” follows our consideration of “relative.”)

Anything, in the entire universe, which we have named (or will someday name) derives its existence--as a separate, definable condition or form--by comparison with what it is not; we say that something is “hot” because it definitely is not “cold.” The degree of its “hotness” (e.g. boiling) is in direct relationship to the degree of its “coldness” (e.g. freezing). And the subtlety of each relative term can be dependent upon a comparison with more than just one other thing: for example, the distinctive interrelationships in the triad, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We would say that you are uniquely “you” not just because you are not “me,” but also because you are not any other person in the entire world.

The point of this is that for even one relative category to achieve being, there has to be at least two or more relative categories that “separately” (but co-dependently) also assume being. For “right” to exist as a particular condition, for example, we are dependent upon a condition which we perceive to be its opposite: “wrong.” This “either/or”--relative--bias (in our fundamental process of thinking about what we perceive as “realities”) is what is referred to in spiritual texts as “duality.” This is our customary, habitual, learned pattern of thinking: to think of all things--whether material or immaterial, general or particular--in a relative (or “dualistic”) context.

The question here is: Is it by way of this conventional, dualistic viewpoint that the verses of the Gospel of Thomas--reputed to have been uttered by Jesus--are intended to be understood? If not, what would be the alternative?

What do the particular things (any being, object, or condition), in our conceivable reality, comprise in sum? A whole; totality. For example, one particular thing is the star nearest to us, which we’ve named the “sun”; and such things that orbit around it, we have given other names--such as Venus, Earth, Mars, etc. Another of the named things, relative to this cosmology, is Earth’s galaxy, which has been designated the Milky Way. Taken together, all such classes of things--and their entire constituent elements--are subsumed in the overarching totality that we call the “universe.” The limited, relative entities--suns, planets, galaxies, etc.--are viewed by us as a subset of an all-inclusive cosmic wholeness which is unlimited by any of its comprising forms. The very meaning we’ve attached to the word “universal” is that which “occurs everywhere,” and as such is “all-inclusive.”

The word all has itself historically been used as a prefix in referent phrases depicting “supreme being”--as indicative of “god”--such as the Almighty. The word all is nuanced to mean “any whatsoever,” but also “more than,” and additionally “lone” (or “sole”).

It is this utmost, or ultimate, condition which is the focus of the awareness of the mystic whose sayings the Gospel of Thomas are the record. Jesus, here, is not speaking in the accustomed, dualistic terms of one who emphasizes the importance of the “many,” but of one whose own consciousness is immersed in--and identified with--the “all.” Throughout this Gospel, he makes it abundantly clear that his perspective is that of one who senses an immediate and direct interconnectedness with the supernal totality; and he invariably speaks of this with complete authority.

He views himself not merely as one of the “many” limited entities or forms which give the “all” its reality, but as that fully-encompassing reality itself in its wholeness. Unequivocally, he says; “It is I who am the all.” (77)"* Perceiving his own being as ultimately intrinsic with, and essential to, the universal totality, he adds: “From me did the all [every conceivable thing] come forth, and unto me did the all extend [in form].”†

He is clearly indicating that he knows this all as his own being, and that therefore not anything is absent from such an all-inclusive reality.

“If one who knows the all still feels a personal deficiency,” he remarks, “he is completely deficient.” (67)

Thus, deficient is any person whose perception of reality is limited to an awareness of the “many,” the relative aspects of the apparent universe, rather than recognizing the all- encompassing supercedence of the universal wholeness which knows of no insufficiency.

And the implication--since he is presumably speaking to interested disciples--is that not just he, Jesus, is the “I who am the all,” but that everyone (any other “I”) “who knows the all” will also no longer be personally deficient.

There is no doubt on the part of the addressed disciples, throughout the Gospel, that they clearly recognize that Jesus does indeed maintain a spiritual perspective which is different from their accustomed one. In fact, that is clearly the precise reason that they have been drawn to him as disciples. Like all such who have similarly quested, throughout world history, they desire to discover how the individuated “me” interrelates with the unlimited “all.” They each seek to be for themselves--as with Jesus--“one who knows the all,” in the same direct and immediate way that one knows oneself.

His disciples said to him, “Show us the place where you are, since it is necessary for us to seek it.” (24)

Jesus is evidently intimately familiar with the plight of the seeker and he has a reassuring attitude toward it, in more than one of his responses.

Seek and you will find. (92)

Blessed are the hungry, for the belly of him who desires will be filled. (69)

He compares what is to be found to a “pearl.” He tells of

…a merchant who had a consignment of merchandise and who discovered a pearl. That merchant was shrewd. He sold the merchandise and bought the pearl alone for himself. (76)

And, similarly, he speaks of

…a wise fisherman who cast his net into the sea and drew it up from the sea full of small fish. Among them the wise fisherman found a fine large fish. He threw all the small fish back into the sea and chose the large fish without difficulty.

Lest this point concerning the “many” and the “one” go unnoticed, he then emphasized,

Whoever has ears to hear, let him hear. (8)

Jesus, in this gospel, takes quite seriously the importance of the teachings he offers. He makes it clear that only one who clearly sees the way is in a position to point out the way:

Jesus said, ‘If a blind man leads a blind man, they will both fall into a pit.‘ (34)

And he assumes the responsibility for such guiding leadership; he says of Mary, in response to a criticism by Simon Peter,

I myself shall lead her… (114)

Even more to the point that he has the rare authority to speak firsthand of the transcendent reality, Jesus said,

‘Many times have you desired to hear these words which I am saying to you, and you had no one else to hear them from.’ (38)

He urged his listeners to seek the “unfailing and enduring treasure” (76):

Whoever finds himself is superior to the world. (111)

He holds out this promise:

Jesus said, ‘He who will drink from my mouth will become like me [who am the all]. I myself shall become he, and the things that are hidden will be revealed to him.’ (108)

* A reminder that parenthetical numeration refers to the ordering of verses as found in the Thomas O. Lambdin translation.† Bracketed constructions are mine.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/02/21/looking-anew-the-gospel-of-thomas#comments2The Beat Goes OnRobert WolfeRobert Wolfehttp://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/02/03/the-beat-goes-on
Thu, 03 Feb 2011 14:38:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/02/03/the-beat-goes-onYou cannot help but wonder what is the source of the direction for their ordered, cooperative and coordinated behavior. Their communal energy is directed to, and from, the cool and dark subterranean mecca, and you would like to be able to look down in there and try to possibly make sense of what is going on. But you could not, even with delicate scientific instruments, unearth and cross-section this community and expect that its organic mysterium would meanwhile remain intact. Unfortunately, when man observes, man inevitably affects that which is observed.

There is, in truth, no observer which can be apart or disconnected from that which is observed. For as long as we view the mystery of existence as a question which can be posed and answered by the questioner, as subject to object, we cannot be one with, or wholly involved in, the question. Asking “Who am I?” is to irreparably sever the “I” from the “Who”. There is no “I”, there is no “Who”, there is only being. The “Who” does not issue forth the “I”, and the “I” does not return to the “Who”. That consciousness which we know as a fragment—the personal self—can never know the consciousness which is wholly unfragmented, or “universal"…the consciousness which transcends individuated intelligence and is your true self and that of the ant.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/02/03/the-beat-goes-on#comments0New Nisargadatta websiteRobert WolfeRobert WolfeFrom the website: "Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj was an Indian spiritual teacher and philosopher of Advaita (Nondualism), and a Guru, belonging to the Navnath Sampradaya. Sri Nisargadatta, with his direct and minimalistic explanation of non-dualism, is considered the most famous teacher of Advaita since Ramana [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/01/26/new-nisargadatta-website
Wed, 26 Jan 2011 13:01:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/01/26/new-nisargadatta-websiteFrom the website: "Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj was an Indian spiritual teacher and philosopher of Advaita (Nondualism), and a Guru, belonging to the Navnath Sampradaya. Sri Nisargadatta, with his direct and minimalistic explanation of non-dualism, is considered the most famous teacher of Advaita since Ramana Maharshi. In 1973, the publication of his most famous and widely-translated book, "I AM THAT", an English translation of his talks in Marathi by Maurice Frydman, brought him worldwide recognition and followers."

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/01/26/new-nisargadatta-website#comments1"What is missing?"Robert WolfeRobert WolfePart A: For 3,500 years of written history, the spiritual teachers have insisted that the Absolute actuality (which we claim to be [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/12/18/what-is-missing
Sat, 18 Dec 2010 14:31:28 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/12/18/what-is-missingPart A: For 3,500 years of written history, the spiritual teachers have insisted that the Absolute actuality (which we claim to be looking for) is omnipresent, present everywhere, at all times. If that's not clear, the Vedas emphasize: "present at every point in space and time." That means here, now -- wherever here is to you, and whenever now is to you. Even more directly, the Vedas say "nowhere is it not." This tells us that it must be not only externally located, but internally as well. Therefore, the Vedas say, Tat Tvam Asi: That Thou Art, or as Nisargadatta's book is entitled, I Am That.

Part B: Part A tells us that if I am That, I am not the isolated "person" or "individual" I have been conditioned to suppose that I am. When it is fully recognized that I and That are the same inseparable reality (That being all-encompassing, all inclusive), the sense of being something apart from That dissolves. Self-identity, the self "image," evaporates.

If that hasn't happened in terms of what you call "knowing," then contemplate Parts A and B to discern what is evidently "missing."

What is it that we evidently ignore? Part A, and consequently, Part B. Why do we ignore these?

The proposition is too simple.

It means the dissolution of the self-centeredness we've known all our life; that is, the only thing we've ever "known". It means dying to our present "reality".

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/11/19/recent-highlight#comments0A Glimpse of MergingRobert WolfeRobert Wolfehttp://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/11/13/a-glimpse-of-merging
Sat, 13 Nov 2010 14:34:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/11/13/a-glimpse-of-mergingIf you listen to electronic recordings of “spiritual” workshops, satsanga, retreats etc., you will frequently hear this comment from attendees: “I had a glimpse of the ultimate state once. But it has disappeared.” The reason for this is simple: the commentator has not transcended the subject/object perspective: there has been a “glimpse” to a “glimpser”; there was a persistent “I” in relation to a “spiritual experience.” In other words, the participant hasn’t fundamentally understood and transcended the perspective which we call dualism. The seeker’s presumption was that “I can have an experience of the One.” And so there is an “I” on the one hand, and “the One” on the other hand.

Every “experience” is impermanent; it occurs within the time frame of an “experiencer.” As the time–bound experience concludes, the experiencer’s I-consciousness recurs. There remains the “I” with its “glimpse.”

With the “I” remaining central to one’s perception, there will be no radical change in one’s self-centered life matrix. Only when this I-centered perspective has irretrievably dissolved will there be the true groundswell of matrix-breaking enlightenment.

Clearly, it is not uncommon for weekend “spiritual” participants to have an experience of a “glimpse” of “merging.” But when they come away from that “training” with the dualistic I/It mindset still unconsciously in place, there will be no permanent, substantial realization of the annihilating perspective known as nonduality ─ a permanent, thorough, annihilating change of the “experiencer” perception.

****

Unpublished manuscript.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/11/13/a-glimpse-of-merging#comments1A Bitter PillRobert WolfeRobert WolfeOne could say that there is not now, and has never been, a thinker/doer or ‘I’. Further, the I is an illusory entity. And, without the I, no thoughts arise that are of a selfish, separative, dualistic nature.

To a Buddha (a person with nondual awareness), there are no separate beings. There is, instead, a “nature [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/11/13/a-bitter-pill
Sat, 13 Nov 2010 14:22:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/11/13/a-bitter-pillOne could say that there is not now, and has never been, a thinker/doer or ‘I’. Further, the I is an illusory entity. And, without the I, no thoughts arise that are of a selfish, separative, dualistic nature.

To a Buddha (a person with nondual awareness), there are no separate beings. There is, instead, a “nature of mind” that is common to all beings; it has always been the only mind. As such, there is no separate mind that could substantiate an independent entity who thinks thoughts, such as those of an “individual being.” The nature of mind has no will or intention that controls or directs individual beings ─ since the nature of mind is indivisible, undivided.

A person with nondual awareness, therefore, does not conceive in terms of separate beings, separate minds, or an individual’s thoughts ─ since there has never been a separate entity which could be a thinker, doer or I. Indeed, thoughts cannot arise outside of the Ground, just as the trees, plants and animals cannot arise outside of the Ground, and nothing can be without “that.” The Ground is the background within which everything arises, and has it being ─ including every thought, emotion, feeling and experience. We are not our bodies, the aware person realizes, we are this vast field of presence.

Consequently, a Buddha views every thought (including the I-thought), emotion or feeling (including love and hate) and experience (as action of every sort) as the expression of the Ground or nature of mind ─ our real nature, the essence of what we are.

A Buddha’s realization is not merely that the construct of I does not in reality apply to himself, but it does not legitimately apply to any human being as well. When the concept of I, as a separate individual disappears, the concept of you, or “others,” disappears concomitantly. All that remains is the pure, common ground of being and awareness, indivisibly. No “you” and “I”, just “that,” no independent thinkers, doers or individuals. No illusory entities capable of creating either selfish or selfless acts.

From that perspective an aware person makes no judgments about the behavior of “others” ─ whether murderers or ministers.

But for those who are inclined to focus on the aberrant thoughts or actions of “others,” this equanimity is a bitter pill to swallow.

Nisargadatta would express this perception this way:

Q: Maybe I can come to control myself, but shall I be able to deal with the chaos in the world?N: There is no chaos in the world, except the chaos which your mind creates. It is self-created, in the sense that at its very Centre is the false idea of oneself as a thing different and separate from other things. In reality you are not a thing, nor separate.Q: Nevertheless, you are aware of the immense suffering of the world?N: Of course I am, much more than you are.Q: Then what do you do?N: I look at it through the eyes of God and find that all is well.

Ramana would say the same, using different terms: “When ‘I’ is given up, it is jnana (realization)…Hence it is said that a jnani’s mind is Brahman; Brahman is certainly no other than the jnani’s mind…In that state, there is Being alone. There is no you, nor I, nor he…The question does not arise when the Self is realized....

“After the rising up of the I-thought, all other thoughts arise. The I-thought is therefore the root-thought. If the root is pulled out, all ‘other’ thoughts are at the same time uprooted… Then the Beyond will take care of itself; you are helpless there…

“Is the Self concerned with [our] actions?...There is no karma (result of action) without a doer. On seeking for the doer, he disappears. Where is karma then?...

“Until realization, there will be karma ─ action, reaction. After realization, there will be no karma; no ‘world’…

“That ego…is the same as the Self. So long as false self-identification persists, questions will arise; there will be no end of them. Doubts will cease only when the non-self is put to an end. That will result in realization of the Self. There will remain no ‘other’ there to doubt or to ask.”

Nor to concern itself with the “individual” thoughts and actions of perceived miscreants, who in their very essence are expressions of the same nature of mind.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/11/13/a-bitter-pill#comments1Part 2, Interview at Simply ThisRobert WolfeRobert Wolfe2. How is it possible to feel compassion or concern for others yet be detached from suffering?

Read at Simply [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/11/13/part-2-interview-at-simply-this
Sat, 13 Nov 2010 14:18:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/11/13/part-2-interview-at-simply-this2. How is it possible to feel compassion or concern for others yet be detached from suffering?

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/10/15/simply-this-interview#comments0Ramana Maharshi: PadamalaiRobert WolfeRobert WolfeIt also has a more useful subject index than the index in Talks with Ramana, and has a glossary [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/09/21/ramana-maharshi-padamalai
Tue, 21 Sep 2010 14:27:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/09/21/ramana-maharshi-padamalaiIt also has a more useful subject index than the index in Talks with Ramana, and has a glossary of Tamil and Sanskrit words.

Ramana's teachings (usually Q-and-A) are interspersed with verses by poet/disciple Muruganar, but these verses are really optional reading since they merely attempt to reflect what Ramana says (much more clearly) by his own tongue. With the verses passed over, the books is basically a short version of an addenda to Talks with Ramana, though some of the material appears in both. There's also a bibliography, for those who insist on more reading!

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/09/21/ramana-maharshi-padamalai#comments0Ramana's Power of PresenceRobert WolfeRobert WolfeIn a marginal way, it is also a testimony to Indians' generosity to the needy, their endurance of discomfort, their devoted service to a [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/09/21/ramanas-power-of-presence
Tue, 21 Sep 2010 14:18:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/09/21/ramanas-power-of-presenceIn a marginal way, it is also a testimony to Indians' generosity to the needy, their endurance of discomfort, their devoted service to a teacher, and their obsession with having - or wanting to have - phenomenal religious experiences (which, when they do have them, they seem to learn little from.)

This latter despite their guru Ramana's teachings:

"What is perceived by our senses and the mind is never the truth. All 'visions' are mere mental creations. And if you believe in them, your progress ceases!

"Enquire to whom the [experiences] occur. Find out who is their witness...Don't move out of that state."

But the volumes are more directly a discovery of the aspects of Ramana's presence which one might not expect - such as the times when he chastises, cajoles, or cries. There are dozens of such examples.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/09/21/ramanas-power-of-presence#comments0Getting to know RamanaRobert WolfeRobert WolfeBe As You Are: The Teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi. Don't skip the Introduction. Its 244 pages include a glossary and index. A good place to start.

The late Arthur Osborne was a western student of Ramana, and edited The Collected Works of [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/09/21/getting-to-know-ramana
Tue, 21 Sep 2010 14:07:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/09/21/getting-to-know-ramanaBe As You Are: The Teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi. Don't skip the Introduction. Its 244 pages include a glossary and index. A good place to start.

The late Arthur Osborne was a western student of Ramana, and edited The Collected Works of Ramana Maharshi. Not a lot was written by Ramana himself, and Osborne explains much about what was. The Preface repays reading. The 192 pages include glossary and index. Ramana wrote in Tamil, and many references are to Vedanta.

These are good preparations for Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi (the major source for his direct teachings) some 650 brief transcribed Q-and-A on many topics (with students or with visitors) over about four years (in late 1930's). 683 pages, with extensive glossary and index, it is best read after the above books. A thorough bibliography at the back will lead you to many other books, of many sorts, to follow with.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/09/21/getting-to-know-ramana#comments0Being Ordinary interview with Robert WolfeRobert WolfeRobert Wolfe Living Nonduality.

"Being Ordinary is a website created by two friends, Tom and [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/08/22/being-ordinary-interview-with-robert-wolfe
Sun, 22 Aug 2010 08:10:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/08/22/being-ordinary-interview-with-robert-wolfe Living Nonduality.

"Being Ordinary is a website created by two friends, Tom and Mike, and is dedicated to the expression and exploration of what it truly means to be a human being. Ideas such as Enlightenment, Awakening or Self-Realisation, often serve to distract us from the ordinary and mundane from which we assume we must escape or transcend. Yet if seen clearly, simple and directly, the ordinary can lead us into total acceptance and end the search for something ‘extra’."

Chopra's Jesus and the Jesus of the Gospel of Thomas spoke the same language of nondual awareness. That is the discovery that gives foundations to Chopra's envisioning of Jesus.

As former theology professor Micael Ledwith has said of Chopra's 2008 narrative,

If you think that all that could be said about Jesus has already been said, then this book will be an eye-opener in the best sense of those words.

I would like the same to be said about my next book with Karina Library Press, that The Gospel of Thomas: The Enlightenment Teachings of Jesus is an eye-opening non-fiction exploration of the teachings of Jesus as recorded in the Gospel of Thomas. It provides in-depth background and scriptural evidence for Chopra's insightful conjecture that Jesus taught nondual awareness; the evidence has been waiting there in the Thomas for two thousand years.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/08/03/have-you-read-deepak-chopras-book-that-says-jesus-taught-enlightenment#comments1Living Nonduality: How Suffering EndsRobert WolfeRobert WolfeMartin: "When I realize that the Absolute is in the Relative, and the Relative is in the Absolute, I have [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/08/03/living-nonduality-how-suffering-ends
Tue, 03 Aug 2010 09:39:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/08/03/living-nonduality-how-suffering-endsAn excerpt from a conversation between Robert Wolfe, author of Living Nonduality, and Martin Weiner, founder of the Explorer Training; the starting point is a quote from J. Krishnamurti: "Where there is division, there is conflict".

Martin: "When I realize that the Absolute is in the Relative, and the Relative is in the Absolute, I have the opportunity to not act..."

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/08/03/living-nonduality-how-suffering-ends#comments0Ramana Maharshi's Question: Who Am I?Robert WolfeRobert WolfeLivng Nonduality and the upcoming Gospel of Thomas: The Enlightenment Teachings of Jesus, and Martin Weiner, sculpture and founder of the Explorer Training. They take as a starting point Ramana's question: Who Am I? [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/08/03/ramana-maharshis-question-who-am-i
Tue, 03 Aug 2010 09:34:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/08/03/ramana-maharshis-question-who-am-iExcerpt from a conversation on the relationship of the Absolute & the Relative between Robert Wolfe, author of Livng Nonduality and the upcoming Gospel of Thomas: The Enlightenment Teachings of Jesus, and Martin Weiner, sculpture and founder of the Explorer Training. They take as a starting point Ramana's question: Who Am I?

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/08/03/ramana-maharshis-question-who-am-i#comments1Robert Wolfe Radio InterviewRobert WolfeRobert Wolfeinterview with Robert Wolfe on Living Nonduality. [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/08/03/robert-wolfe-radio-interview
Tue, 03 Aug 2010 09:21:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/08/03/robert-wolfe-radio-interviewinterview with Robert Wolfe on Living Nonduality.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/08/03/robert-wolfe-radio-interview#comments0Mind - Thoughts - ActionsRobert WolfeRobert WolfeRobert Wolfe, author of Living Nonduality and the upcoming http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/08/03/mind-thoughts-actions
Tue, 03 Aug 2010 09:15:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/08/03/mind-thoughts-actionsExcerpt from a meeting at the Krishnamurti Library in Ojai, California with Robert Wolfe, author of Living Nonduality and the upcoming Gospel of Thomas: The Enlightenment Teachings of Jesus.

But the evidence has not gone away; nor is it being ignored by those who recognize its significance.

Superhuman intelligence, by its definition, is not limited by human standards. Humans are constrained by such relative considerations as, for example, time and space; humans are not accorded such exalted descriptions as omniscient, omnipresent or omnipotent. But some scientists have long suspected that there is an intelligent hand-print on the canvas of reality which is other than—and far surpasses—the human alone.

Physicists speak of “locality” and “nonlocality”. A locus is a place: it has a particular relationship to space; and a location can change with time. Cause and effect, too, are related to time and space: a cue ball, which is here, “now” strikes a billiard ball, which is there, “then” deflecting it into a side pocket. The cue ball is said to be the cause of an effect on the billiard ball: a “local” event has transpired.

The best way in which to translate “nonlocality” is to say that events in this category are not confined to a relationship in time or space. Put another way, nonlocality is transcendent of locality, similar to the way that the omnipotent would have to be transcendent of cause-and-effect.

Physicist David Bohm, as a consequence of his quantum research, began to sense a nonlocal reality at the base of our physical universe. A development in physics had made it clear that an observer (experimenter) cannot be considered to be objectively isolated from the observed (experiment): in other words, an experiment is not unaffected by the experimenter. Indeed, physics had gone so far as to conclude, as a result of laboratory experiments, that the outcome of an experiment can depend upon the intent of the physicist's investigation. If the cause (physicist's intent) cannot be conclusively separated from the effect (experimental outcome), what are the broader implications for assumptions based on “locality”?

In 1959, David Bohm read his first book authored by the sage Krishnamurti. This initiated a series of dialogues between him and Krishnamurti (such as that published as The Ending of Time). By 1974, Bohm had (co-)authored a paper entitled “On the Intuitive Understanding of Nonlocality as Implied by Quantum Theory”.

“Parts”, said the theoretical physicist, “are seen to be in immediate connection...extending ultimately and in principle to the entire universe. Thus one is led to a new notion of unbroken wholeness which denies the classical idea of analyzability of the world into separately and independently-existent parts…”

Bohm's earlier writings along these lines inspired another physicist, John Bell, the author of Bell's Theorem. Bell initially set out to disprove the principle of nonlocality, but his mathematical conclusions actually supported Bohm's premise. However, though proof, it was merely on paper.The mechanics of the calculations in Bell's Theorem lent themselves to laboratory experiments—most notably one in 1982 performed by physicists in Paris.

Because the description of such experiments can become so technical as to be opaque, the following will be so oversimplified that it may contain some omissive errors. However, various scientific reports of this material are available for you to verify at your local library (such as the article I will later quote).

Suppose that you simultaneously fired off, in different directions, “paired” photons. By paired, we mean that one of them, say, was negatively charged, while its twin was positively charged. Let us say that, mid-flight, the polarity of one of the photons was mechanically switched. This change should not affect the other photon, causally, since both are racing away in entirely different directions.

And, yet, the remaining photon will simultaneously react to the identity switch of its twin—by instantly reversing its own polarity.

Such a supernatural occurrence—as that demonstrated to be physical actuality just twenty-seven years ago—can have only one reasonable explanation, in terms of “locality” or normal causality: somehow the first photon communicated its change of state to the second photon.

However, in our known portion of the universe, anything which moves (or is transmissible)—within the confines of relative time and space—is limited to an upward speed. Not anything, in the natural world, can be “propagated” at faster than the speed of light, according to a fundament of physics. Therefore, any earthly message which is transmitted between subatomic particles could be communicated, over a distance, at no more than 186,000 miles per second.

Twelve years ago (May 1997), the experiment was repeated, this time outside of a laboratory. Given the minuscule size of a subatomic particle, any interactions over a mile or so apart are akin to “universal” distances. The experiment was conducted by a physics team at the University of Geneva, who effected the phenomenon at a distance of approximately seven miles.

"Measurements at the two sites”, says the Encyclopedia Britannica Online (Year in Review: 1997), “showed that each photon ‘knew’ its partner's state in less time than a signal traveling at light speed could have conveyed the information—a vindication of the [nonlocality] theory of quantum mechanics (but a problem, for some, for theories of causation).”

Without speculating about an omnipresent field of omniscience that is transcendent of cause-and-effect, it can at least be said that it has been proven to be a fact of life that an unearthly intelligence is present in our physical sphere.

How many people do you know (you, of course, excepted) who are aware of this scientific—not “merely” spiritual—truth? By its very nature, such information will be sequestered to the science page of the Daily Times: the copy editor is saving the 34-point red italics for the Second Coming of Christ.

There is another reason—aside from its obscuration in technical jargon—that the man-in-the-street will not be aware of paranormal discoveries (this, and more yet to come). Such powerful information is co-opted by the military. As I write this, physicists in government research facilities, of the major powers, are siphoning this research into a system for the transmission of codes (negative and positive photons can represent the zeros and ones of binary encoding, and changes in their polarity can signal a message).

But there is an even more critical reason why such information will be overlooked or dismissed, even though it can no longer be categorized as mere conjecture. If there is indeed a supernatural force or intelligence, it is not unreasonable to suppose that it forms “an immediate connection” between every particle (and antiparticle) throughout the realm of space and time, “nonlocally”: “extending”, as Bohm put it, “ultimately and in principle to the entire universe”. It would connect the observer (me) and the observed (you) in an “unbroken wholeness which denies the classical idea…of…separately and independently-existent parts”.

Do we live that way, with a recognition and acknowledgement—unequivocally—that this is the actual, physical condition of our biosphere ? Or do we ignore this truth, even when it is proven?

“Who sees not God everywhere”, as Meister Eckhart said, “sees God nowhere.” If the Almighty is indeed everywhere, that must include where you are standing. In other words, one who recognizes the nature of the Absolute recognizes that God is one’s own personage. But it is not to say that the Absolute is confined to any particular personage. The shrub outside of your window is no less God. The realization is not that you are God alone, but that you are—along with all else that is—God. To suppose that you were God alone would be to suppose that God is a singular entity, with the capacity to stand apart from other entities. Such is a notion which many orthodox religionists hold, which prohibits them from recognizing, and acknowledging, their own identity as God.

No one is more—or less—Godly than you.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/06/24/who-is-god#comments0Awakening is not self-improvementRobert WolfeRobert WolfeLiving Nonduality at the Krishnamurti Library in Ojai, California. [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/05/03/awakening-is-not-self-improvement
Mon, 03 May 2010 16:15:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/05/03/awakening-is-not-self-improvementLiving Nonduality at the Krishnamurti Library in Ojai, California.

"The most misunderstood aspect of the unfolding of unitive awareness is that somehow it results in self-improvement. To the contrary, the entire thrust of spiritual awakening is toward self-erasure."

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/05/03/interview-with-robert-wolfe-on-living-nonduality#comments1Starting a RevolutionRobert WolfeRobert WolfeIt is obvious that, under this circumstance, we develop [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/05/03/starting-a-revolution
Mon, 03 May 2010 15:13:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/05/03/starting-a-revolutionIt is obvious that, under this circumstance, we develop “self-interest”: primary concern for the welfare of one human being before all others. It is evident that a self-centered focus inevitably results in selfish behavior. In a world in which each person’s priority is to advance one’s own interests, it is unavoidable that conflict will result.

A world in conflict is not a stable or secure environment in which to live: it is difficult to make practical plans for the future, where unpredictable disruption is virtually certain. Therefore—even though our own selfish behavior may be contributing to the potential for destructive developments—we recognize that it is in our own self interest to encourage cooperation.

The consequence of this contradictory dilemma, for most everyone, is a form of externalizing. We look out upon the world of self-important persons, or collective groups of such persons, and conclude that “they” are at the root of the problem. In our own self-concern, we ponder how we can encourage them to cooperate rather than compete.

The contrary option requires us to embark ourselves upon the course we advocate: to dispense with self-interest as our primary concern. It is a consequence of internalizing, of “looking within” and acknowledging that we have not yet relinquished self-centeredness ourself.

Where, do you suppose, we have the greatest prospect in convincing a person to eradicate selfish behavior: ourself, who comprehends its necessity; or another person, who may or may not be thoroughly convinced?

There is only one way in which you have definite assurance that selfishness will be reduced in the world. Once you have accomplished that, for yourself, you will be best qualified to instruct others in how it can be done.

There is a clear and continuing need for such instructors. Indeed, if there were such a thing as a social duty, it would be to labor in the vineyard uprooting selfishness. Your first obligation, then, would appear to be to discontinue externalizing and—with intensified focus—internally eradicate the self who persistently operates in a vacuum.

But how can the self eradicate the self—rationally, a contradiction? Could it be possible that our earliest assumption, that we even exist as a separate self, is fundamentally a misapprehension? Some aver that our earliest condition of consciousness—before we considered our “self”—was without any perception of self or not-self. It is, further, alleged this primal consciousness is the platform upon which our subsequent sense of self arises. In the same manner in which that sense of self has arisen, it can again subside. In other words, they say, the assumption of self existence is not entirely necessary to the function of operative consciousness.

If this is so, if our consciousness can operate without the perception of a “self” or non-self (“other”), this could have a profound effect on our self-conscious behavior, couldn’t it?

To discover for oneself whether or not such an operative form of consciousness is a practical possibility, as some of sound mind have claimed, would seem to merit more of our attention than that directed toward fruitless externalizing.

Were we to discover for ourselves such a possibility, perhaps we might then have some effect on the “me” against “them” mindset among our neighbors.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/05/03/starting-a-revolution#comments0 Substantive EnlightenmentRobert WolfeRobert Wolfe meaning of enlightenment? The literal meaning of the word enlighten is “to give the light of fact to; reveal truths; to free from ignorance; to make clear the nature of something: illuminate”.

And so we speak of an “enlightened scientist”, such as Galileo. Until only about 400 years ago, [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/05/03/substantive-enlightenment
Mon, 03 May 2010 15:01:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/05/03/substantive-enlightenment meaning of enlightenment? The literal meaning of the word enlighten is “to give the light of fact to; reveal truths; to free from ignorance; to make clear the nature of something: illuminate”.

And so we speak of an “enlightened scientist”, such as Galileo. Until only about 400 years ago, it was rational (reasonable) to suppose that the sun revolved around the earth, since it is apparent that the sun “rises” in the east and “sets” in the west. However, when it is clearly understood that the earth is a globe (which became obvious once navigators were able to sail around it), it is evident that the sun never actually “rises” from anywhere; it is, instead, the surfaces of the earth—in the globe's revolution—which rise to meet the illumination of the sun.

Now every rational person is an “enlightened scientist” (science means “to know”) today, because of Galileo; he was “enlightened” (free from ignorance) because he was aware of what the vast majority of people were not yet aware.

By the same token, there are other enlightened scientists (who are actually “investigators”) today. Although the form of light has always appeared to be that of a ray or beam, Einstein's theories predicted that light could be observed in the form of particles (“discrete packets” of energy dubbed quanta). Because Einstein's other theories had generally proven true (he had demonstrated his capacity to “reveal truths”), research scientists set about to determine whether this could possibly be true—however irrational it sounded. And, indeed, Einstein's enlightenment has been transmitted.

Subsequent experiments have even surpassed Einstein's intuition. Experimental physicists have discovered that if you set up an experiment to monitor light in its particulate form, it will appear as particles. But if you set up your experiment to observe light in its radiant form, it will appear as a vibratory wave. Such experiments have been replicated so many times that physicists now accept—and operate on—the fact that light does not only take the form of waves, or just particles, but both, depending upon the circumstances of observation.

Therefore, when we speak about light “waves” or light “particles”, we are speaking about the same thing. Prior to the enlightenment of science on this matter, no rational person would have maintained that a wave and a particle were interchangeably the same thing: merely different names, or description, for the fundamentally same phenomenon.

Another source of illumination for man’s science has been the discovery of a level of radiant heat in the galactic universe which indicates a primeval combustion or “explosion”. It suggests that there is a point to which all matter in the universe can be traced back to its original or common origin (so-called “Big Bang”). Out of the material of the stars, all substances we know on earth today—including our fleshy bodies—were formed. We could as well call every tree “stardust”, refer to every rock as “stardust”, and give every bird the generic name of “stardust”.

If a scientist these days were to make a comment that, “Everything is the same: it's all stardust”, another scientist would acknowledge the basic truth of his statement. But that statement, a hundred years ago, would not have been commonly accepted.

If we were to make a similarly unorthodox statement and say, “The observer is the observed”, this would not appear to be so. Our currently common (due to our training or conditioning) way of appraising this proposition would be to say, “If I am the observer, and I observe a tree, I am not the tree!” But if the proposition were phrased, “The stardust is the stardust”, the deeper meaning of the equation would be clearer; and by examining the content of this paraphrase, one can see that it points to the same conclusion as saying, “There is only stardust; everything is the same.”If I were to take a wide bowl, full of water, and dip a spoon into it, then ask a science student, “What is this?”, she would logically reply, “A spoonful of liquid.” That would be the label or name for the exhibit—just as “a human being” is the label for what you are. If I were to take another teaspoon, dip out a second portion and hold it alongside the first, its label would be “a different spoonful of liquid”, or, alternately, a “separate spoonful”. I might even switch to a tablespoon and dip out a bigger spoonful. If I were to name the first one “Me”, and the second one “You”, we could call this third one (by way of illustration) “God”.

But what is the underlying common characteristic of all these spoonfuls of liquid? It is water. When these “separate” spoonfuls are released back into their common source of origination, the bowl, what was their condition prior to being labeled? They were all one—and the same—thing: undifferentiated water. In this reservoir, there could be no such distinguishing entities as “observer” and “observed”. If there were any “observing” at all going on within the water, it would have to be one portion of the water observing itself as an associated portion of the water.Therefore, the full implication of the proposal that “the observer is the observed” is that the observer which is observing “that” is none other than “that” in another (or different) form, observing itself.

The intuitive recognition, or realization, of the fundamental rightness of this cosmic, or universal, relationship (or, more rightly, principle) “frees from ignorance” and “makes clear the nature” of the truth of our actuality. It is “enlightenment”.

However, we might say, enlightenment is as enlightenment does. Although Galileo's illumination changed him in no way except for his newly-aware perception, if he had ignored the importance of his insight, or realization, he would not have expressed himself as an enlightened scientist. If Einstein had said, “These intuitions cannot be true, because they are not entirely logical or indisputably rational”, an unknown German would one day have retired from the patent office.

Although it still appears that the sun revolves around the earth, once you have recognized that this is simply ignorance, you do not persist in referring to the earth as “the center of God's universe”. And once enlightened to the significance of the deep meaning of “the observer is the observed”, you do not revert to the myopic question, “Then why do I seem to be separate from the tree?”

Where there has been penetrating clarity, such a question will not be seriously entertained. Any “me” which has the capacity to wonder about the universe is recognized to be nothing other than an aspect and expression of the universe.

Your consciousness which asserts that it is “conscious” of “consciousness” is nothing more than absolute consciousness in awareness of its very own presence. The stardust which this consciousness identifies as “you”, standing in awe at the stardust of the galaxy, is the ineffable—embracing itself in its varied forms.

Even if we were to simply state that “You are that”, it would merely compound the matter. When you acknowledge that all is that, every sense of division is recognized to be merely misperception.

That which is, is; it has no obligation to follow man's notion of what is rational. To comprehend that the observer is the observed is to witness the disappearance of the “observer”, the “observed”, and the “observing”. That which remains is our own true nature. The “making clear” of our nature is enlightenment—“that which is” in comprehension of itself.

Once this comprehension is present, the false appearances fall away (are seen through) and thus the proposition is self-evident, similar to the way that a mathematical equation is self-proving.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/05/03/substantive-enlightenment#comments1Your Departure TimeRobert WolfeRobert WolfeThe questions you ask about external [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/05/03/your-departure-time
Mon, 03 May 2010 14:46:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/05/03/your-departure-timeThe questions you ask about external “realities” will not get you where you want to go.

The solution to the dilemma of spiritual confusion cannot be found in propositions of logic. “If A=B and B=C, then C must equal A” makes sense from the standpoint of the material world. But what you are seeking—every teacher has said—is beyond the confines of time, distance or causation: in other words, not limited to a question-and-answer paradigm.

All of the teachers tell you to look for what you are seeking within, not outward in terms of conceptual forms.

More specifically, the teachers tell you to discover the source of the questions, instead of pursuing answers to questions.

Questions are gate 10. The source is gate 8. Don’t ignore the departure board: “Go to gate 8. You will waste your life if you go to gate 10.”

To take just three teachers alone, Buddha, Ramana and Krishnamurti taught for a combined total of more than 150 years. None of the three retired before they died, so evidently none “finished the job early” of transmitting the Truth. That is because the Truth contains a tough message.The tough message is that when you close your eyes for the final time, the “you” who you maintain that you are—and everyone of its questions and answers—will entirely disappear, completely evaporate. So, of what value are these things? Ultimately, none.

The only thing that is of any value to you during this lifetime is to perceive the true nature of what it is that is dreaming this dream.

The “you”, and all that you think is important, is a dream. What is real? This is the only question that you need to concern yourself with.

Could it be that there is That which is beyond time, which therefore is so permanent that there is no “arrival” and no “departure” for it? We know that every thing in the material, external realm “comes” and “goes”. What is more “real”: that which is impermanent, or That which persists when everything else has come and gone?

If the latter, is it possible that this timeless actuality is the “background” for all of the transience that is as un-real as a dream? If so, is this the source, the fountainhead, from which all that we perceive makes its “appearance?”

If this is the source of all that is impermanent, is it not the source from which “you” emerge? And, by extension, isn’t it the source from which your thoughts and questions arise?

So, what is more important, contemplating the answers to an endless stream of (ultimately useless) questions, or contemplating your innate source? The teachers urge, “Look within.” Isn’t that a clue? If they said, “Keep your attention busy with asking endless questions” that would be a different kind of clue, wouldn’t it?

That’s why the teachers find the teachings to be a tough sell. When we look within, we discover that we are not who we thought we were. And this might just change our lives, and our lifestyles. It’s possible that we may not “like” what we find behind gate 8. Buddhists, for example, call it the Void. “Void” means “nothing”: 0.

That’s where the answers to all the questions lead: ultimately no where; to the source that has no specific location, no material “reality”. It’s the One who has no questions to ask.

Find this One. That’s the answer to all questions. Head toward the proper gate: self-realization.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/05/03/your-departure-time#comments0Neti, Netimichael@karinalibrary.commichael@karinalibrary.comBear in mind that such terms as awakening are not meant to suggest a movement from one “state” to another, such as to a “higher” state.

When you awaken from sleep in the morning, you are not moving to a [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/03/17/neti-neti
Wed, 17 Mar 2010 14:49:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/03/17/neti-netiBear in mind that such terms as awakening are not meant to suggest a movement from one “state” to another, such as to a “higher” state.

When you awaken from sleep in the morning, you are not moving to a “higher state”: you are merely continuing your existent life in a different form; more actively. Thus, a “spiritual awakening” is a continuation of the present life—in a different form.

What is on the other side of the coin of awakening is not a “higher (or lower) state” but “a different way of living”: living from the perspective where the ego self is no longer the center of the relational universe.

In a sense, this represents the abandonment of the illusionary world, as waking represents the discontinuation of a fascinating dream. In this way, it could be said to be the ending of self-deception, similar to the way that the dream self was an illusion. In this case, the waking self is realized to be similarly an illusion, and our “belief” in this self—as a “separate entity”—a deception.

That this awakening—the ending of “self”-centered deception— has occurred for some and not for others appears to be related to how deeply one aspires to abandon the saccharine dream for the glaring reality of “awakened” life. If realization of the true nature of the self is not at the top of one’s list of priorities, the egoic self “fulfillment” will ever take precedence.

But for awakening to be the number one priority, it must be acknowledged that the pilgrim will have to be willing to confront fears of “annihilation” of the self-created person-ality, the person-al image. It is this fear of the disappearance of “self” identity which stands as a barrier, even for those for whom awakening is their fundamental priority.

What is discovered is that there is no “individual” self to be annihilated, neither in life nor in death. The self that “dies” is nothing more than an illusion that dissipates. With the dissolution of the self, goes the dis-appearance of the self’s fears —including the fear of “nothingness” or “the void”. To the question, “Why is this fearful (or blissful) experience occurring (or not occurring) for me?”, the answer is finally evident: “It’s not.” Are the experiences that “occur” for the imagined figure, in a dream, real or imaginary? In deep sleep, when the imagined figures and their activities are absent, what can be said to be the present condition—except for nothingness, or the void?

We cannot even say what this nothingness or void is “like”, as an experience. If we could come away from this condition as a knowledgeable “experiencer”, it would not truly be the condition of nothingness. So we need not fear the condition of nothingness, because there is no identifiable experiencer of it. If there is any residue—any thing at all—in (or as a part of) the “void”, it’s not the void.

Thus, all we can say about it is that there can’t be more than one actuality that could be represented as nothingness. And because it is the one thing of which there can be no “parts” or fragments, it is that which has been characterized as “oneness”, the all-encompassing essence, or Absolute.

From this nothingness, or void, arises the dream; and from the dream, awakening. And if we trace anything—whether waking occurrences or dream occurrences—back to the source, we inevitably arrive at the actuality, or presence, of the one, ineffable formlessness.

So, it is from this formless source that consciousness arises, and thus self-consciousness, or the “I-thought”. And it is to this insubstantial “I” to which all “other” appears; the embodied “seer” and the “seen” world and universe, manifestations of the same, one source—the formless, through form, seeing “its self”; embracing itself, as the all-embracing.

The formless, as the all-embracing actuality, knows nothing of exclusion. All manifested forms, whether material or immaterial, arise from—rather, as—the same essential presence. You are that, and anything that you would rid yourself of—or become—is that. You are already that which any “higher state”—which any conceivable form—could possibly be.

So, realization is not about going from one form or condition to another—both already being a manifestation of the same, one thing. It is not about moving from one form (“me” as the body) to another form of the formless (me as “pure consciousness”). Therefore, realization is not what most people think it is.

It is not about having some particular experience.

It is not about getting to be a “better” person.

It is not about making anything (such as the world) better.

It is not about maintaining a spiritual “practice”.

It is not about an entity (“me”) becoming some other entity (Buddha).

It is not about something that can be objectified, since it is formless, and thus inseparable, in essence.

It is not about something which appears (or is present) in a particular time or place, since time and space are dependent manifestations of this source.

It is not about something of which there is any subject apart from it (such as “me”), since the formless essence cannot be fragmented.

It is not about something that can be associated with any special experience, state or phenomenon, since all conditions are equally in its embrace.

What is referred to as awakening is the realization that there is no actual I apart from the formless essence; it is about the dissolution of self identification; the egoic mind’s relinquishment of the hold on its projected image; the conscious erasure of the line between “observer” and “observed”. And it’s about living life from the continual reference point of this profound realization. As the sages have assured us, it is possible to live a fulfilling life without the persistent condition of a self image.

For everyone, there is at least the occasional experience, during the day, when one does not exist as a separate entity—to one’s own consciousness; when one is so deeply engrossed, in what one’s attention is focused on, that there is no sense of “self”-awareness. And yet we do not cease to function bodily, even though we are free of the image of our identity, in these moments.

To be spiritually “re-born” is thus to again abstain from self image, as if we were a baby: to be, without the brackets of “was” or “will be”, without “did” or “will do”; the individual that would “be something” or “do something” gone, with only that which is aware and present remaining. This is the relaxation of tension, so that one is in attendance to “what is”—just as it is.

If one were to coin a phrase for the awakened perspective, it might be “proscient awareness”: that is, a “knowing before” in the sense of an operative intelligence which continually directs one’s behavior. It is merely a generally unrecognized aspect of the Absolute, of the source of even our superficial, egoic consciousness—the source, in essence, of all that is done. All that everyone says, does or thinks originates with this ever-present source. So, this essence is the only identity which any of us can rightfully claim. Recognize that this formless essence is your fundamental condition; and that proscient awareness will dictate the direction of your every act—without a “self-ish” perspective to be concerned about any outcome.

This extension of your present existence, into freedom, is “awakening”—just a different form, an inclusive form, of living.

So, while it’s not about “doing good deeds”, as a means to a desired end, being of dedicated service to others is an uncontrived consequence when personal self fulfillment has disappeared from the agenda.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/03/17/neti-neti#comments0Mind: from the Greek "menos"; spirit, forceRobert WolfeRobert Wolfehttp://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/03/17/mind-from-the-greek-menos-spirit-force
Wed, 17 Mar 2010 14:04:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/03/17/mind-from-the-greek-menos-spirit-forceIs it possible (and you can discover this first-hand, if you will) that your self-identification is nothing more than a projection of the mind; and that mind is merely an extension of the self? Since they are each fundamentally a reflection of the other, what is their originating source?

What is your body’s originating source? Is it not, ultimately, the same as the source of all material manifestation in the universe, animate or inanimate? What is the source of animation that we refer to as life? Your awareness of being alive is not something which you created. That which is the source of your sense of presence is the source of your sense of being a unique “person” (the root of the word means ‘a mask’), an individual; and your sense of being a person is the source of your reference to “my mind”.

But whose mind is it? Who is responsible for the creation of its thoughts?…You?…“You” as a physical being (no matter how full “your mind” is with “thoughts”) are powerless to effect the course of nature in the universe. What is the power responsible for your (and the universe) being “present”? Is that not the origin from which your body, your sense of self, your thoughts and your very mind arise?

So, whose mind is it? Whose thoughts are these? Who is the self that is animate in all “selves” and says “I exist” in all consciousness? When you’ve discovered the source of your real identity, you’ve discovered the source of “your mind” and “its thoughts”—the source of “everyone’s” mind and “everyone’s” thoughts.

In Buddhism, they refer to this omnipresence as Buddha Mind, or just Mind: “Buddha Mind” because Buddha discovered that it was this singularity which was the root of his “true nature”, and that all beings share this nature in common. In Eastern spiritual literature, the question is asked (for contemplation): Who is the doer? Are there countless “individual sources”—“minds” which have no connection with one another—which are responsible for the natural unfolding of events? Or is the very unfolding of events the extension of the presence which represents life from its very beginning?

So who, ultimately, is the doer? You; or that origination of which you are a collective representative? Whose mind is at work in “your mind”? What is the origin of all minds? Is there such a thing as an individual “mind”?“

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/03/17/mind-from-the-greek-menos-spirit-force#comments0Fabled Enlightenmentmichael@karinalibrary.commichael@karinalibrary.comIn My Own Way, a double-entendre to indicate that, in the quest for enlightenment, he was his own worst enemy. And so it is for most of us.

Not only does the self have a stake in doubting one’s own liberation, it has an equal stake in doubting the liberation of [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/02/06/fabled-enlightenment
Sat, 06 Feb 2010 18:37:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/02/06/fabled-enlightenmentIn My Own Way, a double-entendre to indicate that, in the quest for enlightenment, he was his own worst enemy. And so it is for most of us.

Not only does the self have a stake in doubting one’s own liberation, it has an equal stake in doubting the liberation of others.

But even for those who are at the point where they can see through the transparent concept of the self, and its inherent insecurity, there often remain concepts which stand as a barrier to full realization.

There is, after several millennia, a mystique which surrounds enlightenment…a folklore of mythology: for example, that there is a moment of ecstatic clarity invariably accompanied by an eerie brilliant light. Or that the person, so enlightened, will henceforth beam a sense of charismatic tranquility on all whom they encounter.

Such stereotypical generalizations lodge as images in the mind of the seeker—and actuality is then compared with these images (and thereby deemed deficient). An example of such a generalization is the oft-quoted comment, “Who knows, doesn’t say. Who says, doesn’t know.” If this implies that anyone who says that he knows, doesnot know, then it also implies that anyone who does not say that he knows, does know. But the inference that is drawn from this is that anyone who admits to his true identity cannot be worthy of an unbiased hearing. Someone once replied to such a person, “But aren’t you the carpenter’s son?” (To which the carpenter’s son commented, “A prophet is never recognized in his own homeland.”)

Of those whom the seeker senses has abided in the place of realization, the seeker often asks direction—and that passerby may respond to the best of his ability. But when the seeker carries to the encounter an image of the passerby’s mythical features (“the Son of David…King of the Jews”), he has no capacity to recognize the anonymous messenger.

When someone tells you that he knows, listen without judgmental thought or conditioned image. Suspend your concepts of what enlightenment is, or how the enlightened appear.If such a person asks you for anything, question his motives. But if he is trying to give you something, ask him to tell you what he can about love.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/02/06/fabled-enlightenment#comments0The Bottom Linemichael@karinalibrary.commichael@karinalibrary.comBut if that divine recognition is your urgent priority, then the essential aspects of your daily life are—or [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/02/06/the-bottom-line
Sat, 06 Feb 2010 18:35:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/02/06/the-bottom-lineBut if that divine recognition is your urgent priority, then the essential aspects of your daily life are—or are obliged to be—organized around that sustained motif. Are they? If not, then conditions are not appropriate for proceeding (whether or not one reads, or is attracted to, spiritual guidance).

What are the appropriate conditions for recognizing inseparability with the absolute? A woman, whom I know, was suddenly hospitalized. A surgeon insisted upon an immediate operation. She declined. He remarked, “Are you prepared to die today?” How would you answer? Are you ready and willing to relinquish all, today? Are you positioned to live from moment to moment in that condition? If so, where was the point of “embarkment” on the spiritual journey?

To be willing to relinquish all, from moment to moment, is to abdicate the future. When you are no longer inclined or impelled toward some future moment, you have come to a standstill (in terms of temporal reckoning). This private standstill is indicative or representative of surrender of the personal will. It is out of this emptiness which a revived spirit embraces and possesses our being.

This voluntary standstill is not a logical or rational procedure; it is founded on intuitive trust, or instinct. It is, in a sense, a matter of surrendering to one's deepest intuition. It is a matter of abiding by what one knows in one's heart is sacred—despite the supposed cost to oneself.The appropriate condition for recognizing inseparability with the absolute is to give all that one has and is—for that is all that lingers “outside”. It is for each person to consider what he individually ‘has’ or ‘is’.

This letting go is not a one-time event; it is a letting go as long as there is anything left to which one clings. For, anything to which we can cling is not our sacred self. This includes our ideas about the urgency of life itself. Inseparability makes no conclusive distinctions.

So, it is not reading or learning, it is the resolution of fear that we are engaging. This must be underwritten internally, without regard to anything ever read or learned. It is a solitary, glamorousless endeavor, and you will not know when or if it is ended.

Therefore, for one reason or another, people generally end their reading and pursuit. For some, the trust is present to let go of all, including assurance of knowing. Only when all is gone, is there only one thing which remains.

Is that what you want?

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/02/06/the-bottom-line#comments1The Silencing Questionmichael@karinalibrary.commichael@karinalibrary.comsource of the presumed entity which is asking the question?” (or any question, for that matter). The [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/02/06/the-silencing-question
Sat, 06 Feb 2010 18:30:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/02/06/the-silencing-questionsource of the presumed entity which is asking the question?” (or any question, for that matter). The immediate source of any question—of all speculation, in fact—is the thought, the idea, that there is an “I” to pose the question: the innocent question “who am I?” can open the door to the provocative question “Is there an I?” Or is the “I” simply another thought form, as are any questions in association with it?

Yet, another of Ramana’s teachings is even more instructive. He reminds us that we spend about 25 years of the average lifetime in sleep. During a portion of these sleeping hours, we are aware (cognitively) of the fantasy images which we term dreams. But we are also, for the remainder of the time, in a non-aware condition of deep sleep. And thirdly, we spend a portion of our daytime hours in what is called the waking state.

Ramana points out that during the period of deep sleep, we are “dead to the world”. Self-referenced imaging ceases: we are not aware of our self—or any self or non-self—nor any other thing, or any conceived relationship between things. Our vital condition, our immediate presence, is that of (what could be called) pure spirit. No thoughts arise, there being no conception of an entity to which to attach them. In this condition, the question “who am I?” is automatically self-resolved.

Yet, there is a being—or rather, beingness—present: were one to be shaken by another’s hand, waking consciousness would reappear as certainly as if it had never been absent.Thus, Ramana refers to the three states, or conditions, of presence (or beingness) which we all personally experience: the waking state: the dreaming state; and the state of deep, un-conscious sleep.

The latter is our unblemished, original condition of beingness— such as experienced in the womb, of which we have no cognitive memory. It is the condition upon which the “I”-oriented dream and waking states are superimposed.

Dreams yield to it, and the waking state gives way to it (as, for example, when we are anesthetized); it is the vital, underlying screen upon which our dream and waking images are enabled. Therefore, it can be said to be the source of our I-dominated perceptions, both in dreams and waking behavior.

What “you” truly are, then, in your primal form, is that which gives rise to—or creates—all that is known to the I, including its self. “You”, in your purest beingness, are not “I”; you are the source of the I—and all else which ostensibly is perceived by that presumed entity.

Ramana would say that this “you” is a “permanent” condition, therefore ever-actual or “real”. The “I” comes and goes, dying (daily) in its dream and waking states into its persistent dreamless condition; so the I is impermanent (being recreated daily) and is therefore not real, a phantasm.In this sense (only), it is sometimes declared that there is Waking, Dream and Deep Sleep states, and the Fourth State; the latter being like a thread which supports the three (aforementioned) beads, and merely represents the beingness upon which the previous three states depend. Were this Fourth State to not be present (as in physical death), you would not experience waking, dreaming nor deep sleep. The underlying condition of all three is the vital, I-thought-free presence that is referred to as the Fourth State—your unceasing “true nature”.What makes this (deeper) understanding of Ramana’s teaching so important is that it is an unerring graveyard for the stubborn I-thought. Whenever a perplexity arises to the cognitive “self”, Ramana would advise reflecting: “Did this dilemma arise during deep sleep?” No. Therefore, it is a non-real, a phantasmic, dilemma.

Did the question “who am I?” arise in deep sleep? No. Therefore, if you understand “who” you are in deep sleep, you need not concern yourself about it—or any other thought-generated concern, for that matter.

So, even more fruitful than asking your “self” who-am-I?, is the one-pointed reflection “Did this thought occur in deep sleep?” This reflection will silence the I-generated conflicts.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/02/06/the-silencing-question#comments1Message from Galileemichael@karinalibrary.commichael@karinalibrary.comOne need only review the Old Testament to recognize that by the time of Jesus’ appearance historically, the “gatekeepers” of the Temple had embalmed God.Jesus—if [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2009/10/02/message-from-galilee
Fri, 02 Oct 2009 11:20:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2009/10/02/message-from-galileeOne need only review the Old Testament to recognize that by the time of Jesus’ appearance historically, the “gatekeepers” of the Temple had embalmed God.Jesus—if one follows the thread which run through the accounts of the New Testament—recognized and emphasized that “God” is a living presence; and Jesus’ actions were a manifestation of this spirit. (“He [God] is not God of the dead, but of the living.”)

The accounts indicate that while Jesus was concerned that his message be understood (even by the illiterate), it became increasingly prudent—after the beheading of John the Baptist—for him to speak in metaphor (parable), to avoid being promptly constrained by the “authorities” (religious or political). The calculated risk, that nevertheless he would be understood, has proven over the centuries to have been overly optimistic.

Not even his chosen disciples managed to agree on the details of what they had heard—or, in many cases, on even what they had seen. (Which would probably be true of any typical group of people today, as well.)

He stressed that one has a personal, intimate, relationship to God, as a son has to a father; there is a “spiritual” presence in the universe which is as accessible as is one’s own father to oneself.

That expression which has been translated as the “kingdom of God”—or alternately, the “kingdom of heaven”—could also be translated literally as the “presence of God.” (See the Encyclopedia Britannica, and Asimov’s Guide to the Bible by Isaac Asimov for details.) And such references as to the “end of the world” are, in consequence, references to an ending of all that is worldly.Jesus insisted that his followers must forsake the worldly, and, while being in this world, not be of it. He urged the giving of all one has to those who need it, and clinging not even to a concern for where one’s next meal is to come from, or where one is to lay one’s head. When dispatching his apostles, he instructed them to take only the clothing they wore, and not even one coin of money.

His message, in his view, was what was important—not the status of the messenger. His message, by example, illustrated the accessibility of a “heavenly”, tranquil presence…and, in its perception, the ending of fear—which is the release of the energy of selfless love. His message was that we are each an aspect of God—present in this presence.

His references to this presence, or kingdom of God, were from a first-hand perspective, having apparently been the culmination of a personal realization during forty days of solitude in the desert, prior to his appearance at the Sea of Galilee. This living spirit, to him, was closer than one’s hand. (“The kingdom of God is in the midst of you.”)

Anyone with the eyes to see and the ears to hear was implored by him to give every shred of their attention to the immediacy of this present spirit.

Even his disciples, however, to the very last, could not conceive of any godly presence except for a “Lord”, nor any heavenly state except for the state of Israel. Two apostles, after his death, were still remarking ruefully, “We had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel!”

But Jesus was pragmatic, not idealistic: he responded to the situations which existed before his very eyes. He was not concerned with whether the world would change, but whether there were any individuals who might immediately change. The appointed time, he reminded, is now; and the place to start is here—with your self.(“…Receive the kingdom of God like a child.”)

We need not concern ourselves with the messenger, nor—once we have heard it—the message. You need only concern yourself with whether you are actively living the spirit of that which you perceive the message of truth to be. “Redemption” is not a product of the messenger or the message, but of personal action—the kind of personal action which involves the same insight which Jesus had…the insight that nothing separates you from this presence, but your “self”.

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2009/10/02/message-from-galilee#comments2Where I am Notmichael@karinalibrary.commichael@karinalibrary.comMid-morning, after a light, early rainfall. It is cool, this late September day, but not at all cold. Surrounded, mostly by redwoods, sunlight scatters through in places on the ground. A few insects are on wing, in this clearing; one in particular, a moth or a butterfly in the distance, seems ecstatically happy. A sole pigeon is out of [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2009/10/02/where-i-am-not
Fri, 02 Oct 2009 11:07:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2009/10/02/where-i-am-notMid-morning, after a light, early rainfall. It is cool, this late September day, but not at all cold. Surrounded, mostly by redwoods, sunlight scatters through in places on the ground. A few insects are on wing, in this clearing; one in particular, a moth or a butterfly in the distance, seems ecstatically happy. A sole pigeon is out of eyesight in a cascara tree, but the fluttering of wings can be heard as it browses among the thinning leaves for those favored cascara berries. A slight movement of the breeze shakes loose—from leaves and needles—those raindrops reluctant to join the earth; some of the yellowed leaves plunge, freeform, with them.

The clouds are an attraction. They were at first daubs of gray against the light blue background. They moved toward my left, nearly as slowly as the minute hand on a clock. And, throughout, they maintained their integrity, without changing forms as clouds seem usually to do. Beneath them, a slight film of wispy cloud moved, more quickly, in the contrary direction. Soon, this lower strata had disappeared. And, to my surprise, the daubs of clouds were moving now toward my right; they had become looser, cottony, and seemed to want to join with each other, as clouds so often do.

They are not under control, in any meaningful pattern as we would define it. Their movements are not to be predicted. In that, partially, is their beauty. They are not intent on any particular thing, changing their direction to meet changes in the circumstances around them.

World peace is here. I ask myself why it happens to be in this particular spot—but not, according to the newspapers, in the rest of the world. There's the same blue sky. The same stuff that all clouds are made of. Tall, silent trees doing exactly what trees do everywhere. The sounds of birds and bugs going about their daytime work as if it were their coffee break. There is the dampened brown earth, with some ants in sunlight, some not. There is a human, sitting quietly in a canvas chair in the clearing, watching a cloud that is moving in two directions, away from its center, in the same moment.

There is peace in this solitary spot on the globe because there is “no one” here. The human, who is merely part of the landscape, has no agenda, no ideas, no intent or motivation; he will not be rising from his chair in a moment to attempt to control something, to influence or change anything. Where could he begin to make any changes that would lastingly improve the situation?

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2009/10/02/where-i-am-not#comments0The Subject / Object Illusionmichael@karinalibrary.commichael@karinalibrary.com Because of our conditioned, dualistic thinking, the teachers ask you to divide reality into two categories, subject and object.Then they show you that our divisive thinking is a barrier to enlightenment.

In a sentence structure—“I see a [...]]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2009/10/02/the-subject-object-illusion
Fri, 02 Oct 2009 10:52:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2009/10/02/the-subject-object-illusion Because of our conditioned, dualistic thinking, the teachers ask you to divide reality into two categories, subject and object.Then they show you that our divisive thinking is a barrier to enlightenment.

In a sentence structure—“I see a tree”—I, the observer, is the subject of the sentence; tree, the observed, is the object.Such a sentence presupposes that I and the tree are separate entities.

We think (in our mind) in sentences.So we habitually separate our self—I—from every object we see.“I”, the thinker, am the subject of every thought we have—what the importance of the thought relates to.The object in the thought can be any of the things in existence, whether material or immaterial.

We divide the world, in our thoughts: there is “me” (always the important subject) and there is all else in existence that is “not me” (the object of our thoughts).

In short, what the teachers are saying is that any object in the universe is—despite our giving it some separative name—a manifestation of the Absolute (or Source).They are also saying that the subject is not an exception to this truth: that everything in the universe is a manifestation of the same singular Source.

So, at the level of the most basic reality, the subject—I—and the object—tree—are the same thing: an aspect (although different in appearance) of the Absolute. This applies to every subject and every object: all are, at their essence, the same, one thing.

Thus, if we look beyond the separative names, there is only one universal thing, the Absolute. That is why it is said, “The Absolute alone is.”There is not anything that is not it, in essence.A tree is That.You are That.And that is why they also say, “You are the Absolute.”

If you are That and the tree is That, there is no “space” between you, in truth: even what we name as space between things too is That, a manifestation of the very same Source.

Time is also a manifestation of the one Source, so time too is That.

Therefore, time and space do not exist as anything other than additional “objects” (not-me) that we have named, and divided in our subject/object thinking.

The teachers are saying, “The observer (subject, which is That) is the observed (object—any not-me thing, whether formed or formless—which is also That).”

You (being as much the Absolute—100%—as anything else is the Absolute) and the tree (being the Absolute as much—100%—as anything else is the Absolute) are the same thing.

When you comprehend this, you realize that every subject and every object is That.Therefore, in truth, there is nothing but That.

The “I” and the “tree” names that we give everything are simply separate “subjects” and “objects” in the sentences that our minds create.

The teachers are saying that enlightenment is present when the seeker sees through these false labels—subject/object names—and realizes that every such name is just another name for the only thing which has true existence.

When you comprehend that (as they say) “All that is, is That,” everyone of your remaining questions will automatically be answered.

By their fruits shall ye know them. By the lives they lived, we know the saints of enlightenment. Standing out among these, in full stature, is Ramana Maharshi. Because he lived in recent times, we have the spiritual teachings in an accurately recorded form (as compared, for example, to those of Buddha). Also, living in India, Ramana’s (Tamil) words have been translated directly into English (as compared, for example, with those of Jesus: from Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English).

Ramana represents the fountainhead of nondual enlightenment teachings, in their directness and succinct clarity. “If you had asked,” as Jesus said, “I would have given you the water of life.” In any one of the few books recording Ramana’s commentary, the truth is there for the asking—authoritatively. “If it were not so,” again as Jesus said, “I would not have told you.”

However, as with spiritual texts in general, discernment is required if there is to be comprehension. Such texts are unavoidably paradoxical: what is said, at one time, from the relative standpoint, may be reiterated later from the standpoint of Absolute awareness. The irony is that this difference is best understood by the one who need not read any texts, the realized. Nevertheless, the subtle message can be comprehended by those who have the ears to hear.

The message of nondual actuality is not even dependent upon the word, as Ramana’s own awakening demonstrated (and as did Buddha’s). Albeit, this truth can be communicated with the aid of words, for those who are ready for it. The ones who are ready for it, have a single eye, and they prize what they see.

A recent book ( Padamalai ) is particularly useful (because of the way it is composed) for understanding the paradoxical teaching style of advaita: what you are taught at one point, you are later shown is an illusion (“There is no you to understand anything”).

A questioner said to Ramana, “I do not know how to read. How can I realize?” Ramana said,

“[A spiritual book] is like asking you to see yourself in a mirror. The mirror [book] reflects only what is on the face [in consciousness]. If you consult the mirror after washing your face [realizing Self-awareness], the face will be shown to be clean [free of confusion].

“Otherwise, the mirror will indicate, ‘There is dirt here [confusion]; come back after washing [clarity].’

“A book does the same thing. If you read the book after realizing the Self, everything will be easily understood. But if you read it before realizing the Self, it will say, ‘First, set yourself right; and then see me.’

“That is all. So: first, know the Self!”

The problem, which besets readers of spiritual texts which speak to the unrealized reader from the realized standpoint, is in comprehending when the response is given from the relative standpoint, in comparison to when it is given from the Absolute standpoint. This can be particularly perplexing when the response is intended to show that the limited (relative) can only appear within the unlimited (Absolute) and not otherwise.

I arrive at the home of John L., whom I have been told by the Hospice staff is dying of cancer, and I go into his bedroom to meet him. As I shake his bony hand, he looks up at me from the dark wells of his eyes: “I’ve seen you before.” His voice is high-pitched and nasal, and he seems to be toothless.

“Very possible,” I say. “I’ve lived here for twenty years. How long have you been in the area?”

His eyes focus on his wife, who is standing by my side. “I can't remember. How long have we lived here?”

“Nine years.”

“Yes, it's very possible that we've met,” I repeat. He and I continue to scrutinize each other. Aside from the thin, long form under the quilt, all I can see is his head and one pale arm. Thin hair, sunken eyes, an aquiline nose, a bristly beard. No, he is not someone that I recall having seen before.

Over the next few days, in a couple of brief visits, I get to know him a little better. And on the third occasion, I am alone with him for a couple of hours while his wife catches up on some grocery shopping. I sit by his bed, hold his glass of Dr. Pepper so he can drink it through a straw, and let him know that I am there to listen to him if he wishes to talk. But he is mostly monosyllabic, and gruff in a covertly amiable way. Considering his physique, appearance, and mannerisms, I would cast him (if I were directing the play) as a crusty goldminer.

Prominently on the wall of his living room are displayed framed scale drawings of a Swedish-made sailboat with beautifully flowing lines; not just a photograph of it, mind you, but a scale drawing showing even its inward detail. Next to it is an expensive sheath knife with his name engraved on the blade, the kind of thing only a skipper could wear on his belt in earnest today.

“You sailed?” I ask.

“Every weekend.”

“I've never sailed. I have no idea what it's like.”

“Nearest thing to heaven you'll ever get, my boy!”

He dozes off. I make a cup of coffee in the microwave and wander around the living room. Toward a rear corner, on one wall, is a collection of about a dozen family snapshots which have been matted and framed. A few of the pictures are of his daughter at various ages, and his son. But there are about three pictures I find myself lingering over, returning again from one to another. They are pictures of him and his wife. The first one was taken at their wedding forty-one years ago; it was a second marriage for both, and she is wearing a corsage and he is in a suit; he looks like he is in his thirties, tall, lean, sensitive, like a businessman on his way up.

The latest picture is in color, and I recognize his wife, at his side, so instantly that I suspect this picture was taken only a few years ago. The man is much taller than his wife, wearing a sports shirt and an easy smile; he looks vigorous but relaxed. I can picture this man as the skipper of a sailboat, a casual hand on the rudder, squinting confidently into the sea breeze, the wind tousling his hair.

I can picture him inviting me into their comfortable dual-wide in this mobile-home retirement park, asking me if white wine is okay, and then sitting back cross-legged in the easy chair to tell me all the things I don't know about how finely the Germans craft steel blades, his voice deep but warm.Later, while out for my evening walk, I am struck by the fact that if I had known that man as I sense him in the photograph, there is no connection I would have made with the man I know in the deathbed. They may be the same height but that is a different body in the deathbed; and my guess is that their personal ambiance is at least as different.

What became of the man in the photograph?: it is obvious to me that he is gone, has left this earth. We like to think in terms of continuity, that the other man somehow became this man. Could this man, even if he regained his health, ever again become the other man? No.

No, somewhere moment by moment the other man disappeared. The evidence we have that he existed is a photograph, a knife, a blueprint. The man in the bed, though still alive, has already let go—even if not consciously—of the man in the frame.

I think back to what I have known of myself. If there is any continuity, it is only in my memory. Can I let go—am I letting go—of the man who only exists in my own picture frames?

]]>http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2009/09/21/framing-the-question#comments1Know Thy Self: an owner's manualRobert WolfeRobert Wolfehttp://livingnonduality.org/blog/2009/09/21/know-thy-self-an-owners-manual
Mon, 21 Sep 2009 10:15:00 +0000http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2009/09/21/know-thy-self-an-owners-manualThe teachings of nonduality (“advaita”: not two), written in the Vedas, are evidently the world’s oldest spiritual pronouncements. They were given freshened interest several centuries ago by the historic Indian sage Shankara.

Within our era, these teachings gained world-wide attention in the presence of Ramana Maharshi, who experienced spontaneous Self-realization while still in his teens—not having read the Vedas or Shankara. (“When I left home in my seventeenth year [already Self-realized]…it was only years later that I came across the term ‘Brahman’, when I happened to look into some books on Vedanta which had been brought to me. I was amused, and said to myself: ‘Is this [condition] known as ‘Brahman’?”)

Ramana, at seventeen, immersed himself in several years of the deepest meditation imaginable—death-like—as he sat silent and desireless in a mountain cave. For the balance of his life, while engaged in the role of a (reluctant) guru, he owned no personal property, had no romantic life and never traveled.

Basically, he had nothing to gain from anything he said. Yet, because he personally experienced the sweeping range of human religious discovery, his teachings make it unnecessary for spiritual seekers to reinvent the wheel. Like Buddha and Jesus before him, he speaks from the authority of first-hand realization. Unlike Buddha and Jesus, his teachings come to us unfiltered by historic doctrinal censors.

And thankfully, for the present-day seeker, his advice is brief and direct. Ramana is deservedly the fountainhead of nondual teachings in our time. From the standpoint of Self-realization, all that one needs to know can be found in a distilled form in such transcriptions as Be as You Are: The Teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi (edited topically by David Godman, who lived in Ramana’s ashram for years and edited its magazine, Mountain Path).

It is the Absolute (our “true nature”) which gives rise to the ego (or sense of personal selfhood); it is this ego which identifies itself (I) with the body which it animates. “You” are not this impermanent body; you are not this transient ego; you are that which is the very ground of being, the eternal presence in which ephemeral occurrences appear.

Ramana refers to this essence as Self; that which is not the creation of (or affected by) thought: thought, like ego, is a creation of the Self. Anything which (separative) thought can identify, he refers to as non-Self. Also, the “I” which is the real I is the Absolute (or Self)—which he sometimes refers to as “I-I” (subject and object as one unit).

Aside from these conventions, one need only to discern when Ramana’s teachings are given from the standpoint of the relative, and when instead they are given from the standpoint of the Absolute, in references in the monographs which follow.